Jump to content

Stannis is the One True King


Recommended Posts

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.

Davos is always on thin ice with Stannis. He's had him locked up and headed for the block several times.

And I understand that he didn't want to kill those children, but he was still willing to. That means he isn't evil, but it doesn't mean he's 'just' or 'fair'.

To say Melisandre owns Stannis by this point in the story is arguably laughable

She has him convinced he's AA. He's carrying the sword she made for him. He's burned people alive for her. They're playing each other, but I think she has the upper hand.

Compare that to Daenerys in Mereen.

Why do I need to? But okay.

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.

Those people came from a pyramid where the nobility had sought refuge. The slaves had already been freed and most likely could identify their masters. They were rounded up by the Unsullied so I doubt their former masters could devise this hoax.

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,

I don't recall this scene but I fail to see how this makes Stannis more just. Do you think he'd refuse to torture that prisoner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I think in the red fire, all those people, revolted against Stannis within 2 years time. Mel saw it in the fire, it is known! So, kill and burn now rather than later is efficient. The Gods Woods was gonna rise up against him in treason also, so go ahead burn it.

And if Davos didn't go on his night stroll with Mel they'd miss shooting star that granted Stannis' wish for justice for all, except those who would betray him in the future.

Stannis knows Mel's fire don't lie, he saw it himself.

And Mel gave him that fair and just juices between her legs. Oh ya! That's Stannis' fair and justice.

Davos too would be burning in hell if he didn't learn to read. Your crime, you did not allow me to burn that boy....(he has no name)....and you did not learn how to read to tell me that I am to be a Hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

two kids? I know the whole deal with Edric Storm; who he never ended up burning anyway thanks to Davos, but who was the other child you speak of?

The guy saved the nights watch man, that brings him even higher than Robb in my book; a man who can't keep his promises is not someone I'd ever follow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Hubard Rambton and his four sons decided to defend septuary at Dragonstone. He was killed alongside two of his sons.

It is actually an extraordinary amount of leniency Stannis displays by only imprisoning the two surviving sons and not having them excecuted as well (they were later excecuted, though not on his orders). They attack his men who carry out his orders armored and with swords (i.e. not only on the spur of the moment, but planned), killing four of them.

I would say your example only confirms Knight of the Teabag's statement:

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.

In this case, there was no doubt at all. As with the imprisonment of Lord Sunglass of course, who renounced his oath of fealty to him point blank.

While I deeply disapprove of Stannis' disrespect for the 7 Andal Gods and understand and somewhat admire people like Rambton and Sunglass, they were treated as well as they could expect according to the laws - commit high treason, attack and kill people about the king's business, you won't get a medal. If there is one who might have cause to complain, I say it would be Alester Florent (though ironically, him I cannot stand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis has no legal right to the throne, because he lacks proof for his case.

Nor has he even a semblance of moral right, either. Not since he killed Renly.

Last but not least, he is not fit to rule either. His claim is quite self-centered and self-interested; he wastes his resources routinely out of plain hubris; and he is a hypocrite to boot.

People often seem to think of Randyll Tarly when they speak of Stannis Baratheon. Those are two very different men, however, although it is my understanding that Stannis used to resemble Tarly back in the day.

Stannis basically swears that he is Randyll Tarly's bitter brother. But that he in fact more like Theon Greyjoy's richer, more spoiled brother.

Stannis was merciful to Renly, he offered him his place on the Small Council and his current seat in spite of his acts of treason.

Stannis treated with Renly, that was the only thing he could do - When Renly refused him he has no choice but to kill Renly and he uses the only means he has neccesary.

Why are you upset? That Stannis killed Renly or that Renly didn't get to kill Stannis first - Because that's exactly what he would of done.

He doesn't sacrifice Edric in spite of being told that it would guarantee him the throne, so obviously he does have morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He would have burned Mance Ryder's son if Jon Snow hadn't hidden him away with Samuel.

We're never told if he would have or not, only that Jon believed he would. Jon ended up being wrong about quite a few things in ADwD. His final chapter pretty much says it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is actually an extraordinary amount of leniency Stannis displays by only imprisoning the two surviving sons and not having them excecuted as well (they were later excecuted, though not on his orders). They attack his men who carry out his orders armored and with swords (i.e. not only on the spur of the moment, but planned), killing four of them.

I would say your example only confirms Knight of the Teabag's statement:

In this case, there was no doubt at all. As with the imprisonment of Lord Sunglass of course, who renounced his oath of fealty to him point blank.

While I deeply disapprove of Stannis' disrespect for the 7 Andal Gods and understand and somewhat admire people like Rambton and Sunglass, they were treated as well as they could expect according to the laws - commit high treason, attack and kill people about the king's business, you won't get a medal. If there is one who might have cause to complain, I say it would be Alester Florent (though ironically, him I cannot stand).

For Rambtons - OK, they actively defied him (maybe not defy him as much as protecting the Faith which is one of knightly vows and a reason why Greatjon can't smash heads in tourneys). Sunglass didn't. After incident with septuary all he did was threatening to withdraw his support - not betraying, not defecting, not backstabbing - just not wanting to have anything with madman - and he ended side by side at stakes with Rambton's sons.

Alester Florent is actually a very good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Rambtons - OK, they actively defied him (maybe not defy him as much as protecting the Faith which is one of knightly vows and a reason why Greatjon can't smash heads in tourneys). Sunglass didn't. After incident with septuary all he did was threatening to withdraw his support - not betraying, not defecting, not backstabbing - just not wanting to have anything with madman - and he ended side by side at stakes with Rambton's sons.

Alester Florent is actually a very good point.

All of the above would have become cannibals, rapist, and murderers. Stannis knows, according to the flame, fires don't lie. It is known.

Stannis is never wrong because his actions are guided by the fire called Justice and the flicking flame called Fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis was merciful to Renly, he offered him his place on the Small Council and his current seat in spite of his acts of treason.

There is no mercy in treacherous murder. Nor is there treason in open, honest challenge to Stannis' claim.

Stannis treated with Renly, that was the only thing he could do - When Renly refused him he has no choice but to kill Renly and he uses the only means he has neccesary.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Stannis isn't entitled to do whatever it takes to further his cause regardless of the consequences. What is that "had no choice" talk based on?

Why are you upset? That Stannis killed Renly or that Renly didn't get to kill Stannis first - Because that's exactly what he would of done.

Renly would probably end up killing Stannis at the battlefield. Fairly. After having tried to get his cooperation first. Giving him every chance to surrender.

That is honorable. Stannis' treacherous murder was anything but.

He doesn't sacrifice Edric in spite of being told that it would guarantee him the throne, so obviously he does have morality.

That is quite the illustration of grasping at straws. He failed to commit a specific atrocity, so he must be moral? Really? Never mind that he considered it for a long time and was deprived the choice by Davos anyway?

By that logic, there are hardly any immoral people anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I just don't know how anyone can think that way when he killed Renly for simply defying his claim, Alester Florent for seeking peace with the Lannisters, Cortnay Penrose for refusing to give him Edric Storm and - by his own written admission (page 471 of ADWD) - thinks nothing of killing surrendered prisoners that he doesn't find valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't know how anyone can think that way when he killed Renly for simply defying his claim, Alester Florent for seeking peace with the Lannisters, Cortnay Penrose for refusing to give him Edric Storm and - by his own written admission (page 471 of ADWD) - thinks nothing of killing surrendered prisoners that he doesn't find valuable.

There is no Geneva conventions in Westeros. All is fair in love and war. Even burning children, his mentality is it's his right!

Stannis is a strong contender because he doesn't give up. If he was the last man standing he'd still demand his throne. If he only had better relations with either of his brothers, it might have been a lot smoother.

I think he makes a good general and judge but not a King because he wouldn't survive in the political space. He has no people skills, like Robert, he could make friends of his enemies or Sansa, who can read people and give people what they want to hide from danger. To be King, Stannis needs that political component.

He can't have a small council full of people like Davos, people like that are not a dime a dozen.

He can lead the army though, no doubt. A few seconds on the throne and his people would just grow to hate him more and more because of his failing personality.

Anyone agree with me? Maybe not :)

Westeros is not made for people like Robb, Ned and Stannis to become King. They are more homely people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no mercy in treacherous murder. Nor is there treason in open, honest challenge to Stannis' claim.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Stannis isn't entitled to do whatever it takes to further his cause regardless of the consequences. What is that "had no choice" talk based on?

Renly would probably end up killing Stannis at the battlefield. Fairly. After having tried to get his cooperation first. Giving him every chance to surrender.

That is honorable. Stannis' treacherous murder was anything but.

That is quite the illustration of grasping at straws. He failed to commit a specific atrocity, so he must be moral? Really? Never mind that he considered it for a long time and was deprived the choice by Davos anyway?

By that logic, there are hardly any immoral people anywhere.

There is no mercy in treacherous murder. Nor is there treason in open, honest challenge to Stannis' claim.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Stannis isn't entitled to do whatever it takes to further his cause regardless of the consequences. What is that "had no choice" talk based on?

Renly would probably end up killing Stannis at the battlefield. Fairly. After having tried to get his cooperation first. Giving him every chance to surrender.

That is honorable. Stannis' treacherous murder was anything but.

That is quite the illustration of grasping at straws. He failed to commit a specific atrocity, so he must be moral? Really? Never mind that he considered it for a long time and was deprived the choice by Davos anyway?

By that logic, there are hardly any immoral people anywhere.

You said he had no semblance of morality, I think it's clear he has.

"Renly's Treacherous Murder"

"Renly probably would of given Stannis every opportunity to surrender"

Sensationalist guesswork, he has no choice because - If he beat Renly's army he would be unable to defeat the Lannisters, meaning his only way to win the Iron Throne was to have Renly bend the knee or to kill Renly with his army intact.

As with most people who dislike Stannis you overemphasize the shadow-murder of Renly and judge him for things he never actually did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis is the best for Westeros as of now, only a strong leader such as Stannis can truly hold together Seven Kingdoms and only a Just leader such as Stannis can clean the political shit-storm that is Kings landing politics, everyone fears his justice. Stannis has been through much

Though I have a feeling he will end up as a Hand to someone but Stannis is my Fav Character!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above would have become cannibals, rapist, and murderers. Stannis knows, according to the flame, fires don't lie. It is known.

Stannis is never wrong because his actions are guided by the fire called Justice and the flicking flame called Fair.

For your own sake I hope this is sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said he had no semblance of morality, I think it's clear he has.

"Renly's Treacherous Murder"

"Renly probably would of given Stannis every opportunity to surrender"

Sensationalist guesswork, he has no choice because - If he beat Renly's army he would be unable to defeat the Lannisters, meaning his only way to win the Iron Throne was to have Renly bend the knee or to kill Renly with his army intact.

As with most people who dislike Stannis you overemphasize the shadow-murder of Renly and judge him for things he never actually did.

Yeah, same way people blame Joff for something Ilyn Payne did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no evidence for that. On the contrary, he seems to make a point of driving his good counselors away and to surround himself with glorified thugs and yes-men. He even says so in ASOS.

You're confusing a legitimate claim to a throne (something that is essentially fictional - why on Westeros would anyone have such a right?) with fulfilling the letter of the succession laws.

Stannis would have the lawful claim if he had proof. Since he does not, the lawful claim is not his. Not that it matters much except for the Lannisters, mind you.

stannis may not have proof, but that' why he has to fight, do you expect him to give in just because ha doesn't have a video of jaime and cersei doing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...