Did Stannis honestly ever have a chance?

[Bronn Urgandy]

He sounds like an IB in this quote.

Does sound a bit Victarian doesn't it, although King Mannis taught the IB the true meaning of badass.

your avatar combined with your comment made my day! :-D :-D

Haha, thanks.

mine too!

Thanks to you too. Overly manly man quotes work really well with Stannis,

"you have an open wound, your grace"

"open wound? It is an extra pocket"

Oh, please. Everything that every character has been given is a plot gift. The main characters get more plot gifts, or rather more helpful ones, simply because, IMO, they are more important to the overall story.

Dany is a main character who is likely going to be in this series until the end, or at the least, near the end, thus her plot gifts are going to be more than those of a more minor character such as Stannis.

I am not sure how we define minor and major characters in this story. I think Stannis would almost certainly be a POV had GRRM not decided in not having Kings as POV's.

Ignoring your direwolf vs. Chaining your dragons, an exercise in consequences. Divine favor in stories exists, poopooing it is also well established as a course of action. As is what happens after.

My posit is that if Daenerys doesn't get what she wants and nobody likes her, she's a failure, story and meta. Stannis is invincible in that area. He's a stronger character as a protagonist, and that's only seeing the story from a sideways perspective. His fans wouldn't be crying over it. Well, we will, but in a different way than implied. More 'you can rest now, Stan.'

Its odd that Stannis has actually reached a point in the story where he can only exceed what we hope of him, it shows his contributions thus far.

[Winterfellian]

Snip-

If you feel you have to refer to the “judgement of God” to answer my qualms with Stannis approach to law, then you are definitely not getting my objections. To spell it in more simple terms, I think we have one of 2 scenarios:

1. Stannis is a just man. Worthy of notice: by your own admission his is a limited form of justice. Since Stannis channels his own idea of justice through a narrow-minded and black and white point of view he fails to see that lawful ≠ righteousness or moral rightness. This is to say that just because something is lawful does not immediately translate into what is morally right in terms of the consequences his “justice” brings upon other individuals. This is problematic in itself, but in a ruler?

This is a concept that is explored throughout the books and not only in the case of Stannis. So whether Westerosi law is flawed or just harsh, given not only the structure of the books as well as the singular stories of characters such as Jaime and Jon, where this sort of limits are constantly tested, then I think we should not make the mistake that Stannis and you are making- that is, simply accepting it on account of being “the law”

I think we ought to question it just as we are meant to question the code of honor and other set of values established in Westeros as well as recognize a character’s ability or inability to question them themselves. And not on account of measuring Stannis or any other character to our standards, but because the way the story is framed in a way that encourage us to do so.

2. Or because Stannis justice, again, by your own admission, limited, does not produce results compatible with what is morally right, should we question if his is true justice.

Either way, in the end, I think Aemon had it right when he told Jon that there is neither right nor wrong, only the choice that you can live with. The fact that the choices Stannis can and chooses to live with involve kinslaying, cruel executions, sleeping with a sorceress to produce shadow abominations with the intention to assassinate political rivals, allowing the burning of religious imagery important to others (those he intends to rule if I may add), burning an innocent kid to make some sorcery to further his quest to the throne (a choice he was prepared to make, but conveniently saved from making it by Davos), etc. tells us a lot about the man behind the choice.

Regarding the examples you name, all those related to punishing treason are hardly anything new or revolutionary. To the contrary, is the norm, so I fail to see what is extraordinary about them. The others, well, they pretty much illustrates my objections already explained with Stannis view of “justice”

And to save your time, if you find it too futile to respond to the arguments above with nothing more than a fanboyism such as the “the Mannis/King can do as he like”, please do not bother to respond.

[Antler's Fury]

kinslaying,

So? Robert was a kinslayer when he killed Rhaegar. So was Robb when he executed Rickard Karstark. Tyrion slew his own father, and Bloodraven and Maekar their own brothers. Kinslaying would seem more morally repugnant if people's kin didn't keep doing things that justified slaying them.

cruel executions

...of traitors. And is there a Westerosi execution style that is not cruel? Beheading, starvation, and hanging are legal punishments in Westeros. How is burning somehow worse? It's not as though Stannis is violating a Westerosi standard like lethal injections and community service.

sleeping with a sorceress to produce shadow abominations with the intention to assassinate political rivals

Melisandre is officially a priestess. The term sorceress is a pejorative label used by people who follow the Seven. I also don't see how shadow assassins are necessarily more abominable than wargs, who are also denounced in a similar fashion in the South, and can be used to kill political rivals as well.

allowing the burning of religious imagery important to others

His own religious imagery. He destroyed his own sept and godswood, not anyone else's. Stannis doesn't care if his men follow the Seven or not, only that they respect his decision not to.

burning an innocent kid to make some sorcery to further his quest to the throne

...and save millions of lives.

a choice he was prepared to make

Was he? He threatened to kill Mel if she was wrong, indicating that, even at the end, he was still unsure and very conflicted over it.

[Winterfellian]

So? Robert was a kinslayer when he killed Rhaegar. So was Robb when he executed Rickard Karstark. Tyrion slew his own father, and Bloodraven and Maekar their own brothers. Kinslaying would seem more morally repugnant if people's kin didn't keep doing things that justified slaying them.

Are you honestly comparing the blood type relationship Robert and Rhaegar had with the blood sibling relationship between Stannis and Renly? I do not see the point of this argument. Just because others do something does not follow that this action is correct. Just because Tyrion killed Tywin does not make any such crime any more right, so your point is rather moot. It sounds a little too much like, but all the cool kids are doing it.

...of traitors. And is there a Westerosi execution style that is not cruel? Beheading, starvation, and hanging are legal punishments in Westeros. How is burning somehow worse? It's not as though Stannis is violating a Westerosi standard like lethal injections and community service.

Actually beheading is a more "humane" method of execution. I once read an account from a martyr being burned to death duting medieval times, and that seemed a particularly nasty way to go. My main problem is not only the method, but the reasoning behind choosing the method-placate a religious faith that he claims not to believed, but that he associated himself with for the mere sake of the power it would offer to further his own ends. There is a strong subtextual hipocrisy in all this that I, frankly, do not appreciate.

Melisandre is officially a priestess. The term sorceress is a pejorative label used by people who follow the Seven. I also don't see how shadow assassins are necessarily more abominable than wargs, who are also denounced in a similar fashion in the South, and can be used to kill political rivals as well.

A rose by any other name...sorceress, priestess, whatever you want to call her you cannot deny that her methods are...questionable at best.. About the wargs, holy strawman! Just to be clear, if I ever see Jon, for example, purposely using his warging ability to commit political assasinations to further his own ambitions for a crown, rest assured that I will judge it as harshly as I judge Stannis. But if you take the time to analyze my post above, you will be able to see that it is not what I was arguing.

His own religious imagery. He destroyed his own sept and godswood, not anyone else's. Stannis doesn't care if his men follow the Seven or not, only that they respect his decision not to.

He doesn't care? Then what was all that ridiculous show of having the defeated wildings burned their sticks of weirwood in order to embrace the God of light about? Either he does care or he's a big hypocrite. Personally I lean towards the second option.

...and save millions of lives.

Saids who? Personally I do not favour leaders who willingly and consciously embraced moral dettachment for the sake of utilitarian purposes. Especially when those purposes are conveniently aligned with their own ambitions and desires. But that's just me. To each his/her own I suppose.

Most importantly, let's not forget that Stannis was considering the burning waaaaay before he heard about the NW's plight (remember Mel did not switch to talk about how Stannis was meant to fight the Others until Davos alerted them of the situation at CB) So from what was Stannis going to save this millions? The war he himself was prolonging by not accepting defeat? Do not kid yourself, the "dragons" he and Mel meant to raise at the moment the burning of Edric was on the table were to be used to crush his enemies-Lannisters/Tyrells, etc. not in some kind of war of the Dawn.

He could have saved those millions by simply accepting that he was beaten and a kid would not have need to be burned to death in the process. But this course of action did not involve Stannis getting what he wanted, so yeah, burning the kid was the logical choice. To save millions fo course! Rationalization at its best.

Was he? He threatened to kill Mel if she was wrong, indicating that, even at the end, he was still unsure and very conflicted over it.

So? Does not follow that he would not have done it. Davos seemed convinced enough to risk his own head over the matter, so there must have been some truth in there.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

So? Does not follow that he would not have done it. Davos seemed convinced enough to risk his own head over the matter, so there must have been some truth in there.

Well that was Davos PoV, we still don't know what goes inside Stannis's head.

[SkaggCannibal]

If you feel you have to refer to the “judgement of God” to answer my qualms with Stannis approach to law, then you are definitely not getting my objections. To spell it in more simple terms, I think we have one of 2 scenarios:

1. Stannis is a just man. Worthy of notice: by your own admission his is a limited form of justice. Since Stannis channels his own idea of justice through a narrow-minded and black and white point of view he fails to see that lawful ≠ righteousness or moral rightness. This is to say that just because something is lawful does not immediately translate into what is morally right in terms of the consequences his “justice” brings upon other individuals. This is problematic in itself, but in a ruler?

This is a concept that is explored throughout the books and not only in the case of Stannis. So whether Westerosi law is flawed or just harsh, given not only the structure of the books as well as the singular stories of characters such as Jaime and Jon, where this sort of limits are constantly tested, then I think we should not make the mistake that Stannis and you are making- that is, simply accepting it on account of being “the law”

I think we ought to question it just as we are meant to question the code of honor and other set of values established in Westeros as well as recognize a character’s ability or inability to question them themselves. And not on account of measuring Stannis or any other character to our standards, but because the way the story is framed in a way that encourage us to do so.

2. Or because Stannis justice, again, by your own admission, limited, does not produce results compatible with what is morally right, should we question if his is true justice.

Either way, in the end, I think Aemon had it right when he told Jon that there is neither right nor wrong, only the choice that you can live with. The fact that the choices Stannis can and chooses to live with involve kinslaying, cruel executions, sleeping with a sorceress to produce shadow abominations with the intention to assassinate political rivals, allowing the burning of religious imagery important to others (those he intends to rule if I may add), burning an innocent kid to make some sorcery to further his quest to the throne (a choice he was prepared to make, but conveniently saved from making it by Davos), etc. tells us a lot about the man behind the choice.

Regarding the examples you name, all those related to punishing treason are hardly anything new or revolutionary. To the contrary, is the norm, so I fail to see what is extraordinary about them. The others, well, they pretty much illustrates my objections already explained with Stannis view of “justice”

And to save your time, if you find it too futile to respond to the arguments above with nothing more than a fanboyism such as the “the Mannis/King can do as he like”, please do not bother to respond.

So you are prefering the ruling style of Jaime and Jon, breaking the law when it suits, above Stannis who consistenly follows the law? You are saying a good ruler should not follow the law but instead a ruler should seek moral rightness? Moral rightness is impossible for anyone to obtain, hence my usage of "God". Laws are there instead, and it's a King's duty to see them followed, he's a Judge too. If you can't see the importance of following rules and laws equal for everyone, above what seems best (to you), I have nothing further to say. I hope in real-life you have more respect for the law, as without such respect, abuse of power (like from Jaime and Jon) is only a corner away.

[Draco_Dracul]

The only reason Stannis can be said to have not broken the law is the Nixon justification, when the king does it, it isn't a crime. And Stannis isn't half the leader Nixon was.

[Bronn Urgandy]

What laws has Stannis broken though?

Renly was a usurper and a traitor, Deamon Blackfyre was Bloodravens own kin, didn't stop the latter filling the former with arrows, or his nephews taking the field against him because he was a usurper and a traitor. All men burned were condemned to die, for treason and other crimes. He burned his OWN possessions; the Sept and Godswood. The closest he's come to breaking any kind of laws was Edric Storm, which would've pushed him over the edge in many peoples eyes, the fact that he flat out refused to do it until he was certain it would work tells you that he was taking the matter seriously and even then not willing to kill an innocent on the off-chance, and if Stannis had woken a Dragon with that sacrifice and went on to mop the floor with the White Walkers with it, would you not be at least a bit more understanding? Dragons costing lives seems to be the price to pay, Danys 3 Dragons seem to have cost 3 lives, and taken many more, and they're in the wrong place. Now imagine just one of those belonging to the King that cared. And if it doesn't work, Mel gets flayed alive and Stannis must live with his mistake. Its easy to hate Stannis and claim he is morally wrong, or not "just," because absolutely none of us would want to be in his shoes.

[TheMysteriousOne]

I am not sure how we define minor and major characters in this story. I think Stannis would almost certainly be a POV had GRRM not decided in not having Kings as POV's.

Main characters, IMO, have to be all three of the following:

1) A POV character

2) A POV character since AGOT

3) A character with considerable influence over the overall story.

Of course, this is my opinion and thus is not entirely relevant, but you'd have to be somewhat delusional to believe that Stannis is on par with Dany, Arya, Jon, Sansa, Bran and Tyrion.

[Iona]

Laws in Westeros are pretty vague, but I can't say that I was ready to pat the Man on the back when he threatened to take over NW castles by force.

Him not responding to Ned's summons to haul his ass back to KL when Ned was the Hand could be seen as borderline criminal. That's one I can come up with for now.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Him not responding to Ned's summons to haul his ass back to KL when Ned was the Hand could be seen as borderline criminal. That's one I can come up with for now.

It would have been in Stannis' eyes.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Main characters, IMO, have to be all three of the following:

1) A POV character

2) A POV character since AGOT

3) A character with considerable influence over the overall story.

Of course, this is my opinion and thus is not entirely relevant, but you'd have to be somewhat delusional to believe that Stannis is on par with Dany, Arya, Jon, Sansa, Bran and Tyrion.

At this stage it could be argued that no character has done more for the story than Stannis. In fact, even before I came to like him as a character, I liked him purely because he got the plot going on a large scale instead of faffing about like so many others.

Laws in Westeros are pretty vague, but I can't say that I was ready to pat the Man on the back when he threatened to take over NW castles by force.

Him not responding to Ned's summons to haul his ass back to KL when Ned was the Hand could be seen as borderline criminal. That's one I can come up with for now.

It would have been in Stannis' eyes.

In fairness it would've also been his life, or at least he certainly thinks that. I think Stannis was gathering swords so that when he told Robert he'd have some protection, what he was doing gathering swords on Dragonstone before Robert dies is never really explained, but the guys been at court for 15 years so his life experience would tell him he has no friends there, so he'd need to be well backed up. Whereas Ned actually thought he could trust people.

As far as the NW Castles, I like his attitude, they've let them go to waste and at this stage in the game it doesn't matter who mans them, so long as somebody does, as Stannis says "if but one Castle falls to the enemy, your head with adorn a spike" or words to that effect. It only looks bad because Stannis doesn't waste time with niceties, shit must get done.

[Iona]

It would have been in Stannis' eyes.

True dat, we would have heard some teeth grinding and muttering about traitors from Stan. I don't know how strict people are in general about the reliability of raven-carried messages reaching their destination. "We never saw no bird" is a pretty nice excuse. :dunno:

[Iona]

In fairness it would've also been his life, or at least he certainly thinks that.

Can we use "in fairness" to excuse our justifications when we are talking about Stannis? His views of justice and servitude are strict enough to not allow much room for it.

[Feliciano69]

Either way, in the end, I think Aemon had it right when he told Jon that there is neither right nor wrong, only the choice that you can live with. The fact that the choices Stannis can and chooses to live with involve kinslaying, cruel executions, sleeping with a sorceress to produce shadow abominations with the intention to assassinate political rivals, allowing the burning of religious imagery important to others (those he intends to rule if I may add), burning an innocent kid to make some sorcery to further his quest to the throne (a choice he was prepared to make, but conveniently saved from making it by Davos), etc. tells us a lot about the man behind the choice.

Sure, that being a King is tough.

When it comes to the issue of shadow babies, I always remember two things Martin said:

First, that he made the Night's Watch wear black as their color as a way to contest the association of the color black with evil forces that is very common in fantasy fiction; and second, that one of the most misunderstood characters in the novels is Melissandre, to which I fully agree.

Personally, I'm not in the service of supporting Edric's execution, much as I am in favor of supporting Stannis, but it's all part of a process, it's about a man's realization that despite having a good claim, despite having the right to be king, despite his experience and his competence, he still has a lot to learn.

[Antler's Fury]

Are you honestly comparing the blood type relationship Robert and Rhaegar had with the blood sibling relationship between Stannis and Renly? I do not see the point of this argument. Just because others do something does not follow that this action is correct. Just because Tyrion killed Tywin does not make any such crime any more right, so your point is rather moot. It sounds a little too much like, but all the cool kids are doing it.

I'm saying that sometimes kin do things that warrant slaying them. Rhaegar was, as far as Robert knew, a tyrannical prince who'd kidnapped his fiancee and supported the murders carried out by his father. Twyin was an abusive war criminal. Daemon Blackfyre was a usurper, as was Renly.

Actually beheading is a more "humane" method of execution.

I'm sure Farlen will be pleased to know that considering that it took Theon four blows to hack through all his bone and muscle. Humane indeed!

My main problem is not only the method, but the reasoning behind choosing the method-placate a religious faith that he claims not to believed, but that he associated himself with for the mere sake of the power it would offer to further his own ends. There is a strong subtextual hipocrisy in all this that I, frankly, do not appreciate.

How is it hypocritical though? He said he uses Mel for her power and that's the position he's stuck to ever since CoK.

A rose by any other name...sorceress, priestess, whatever you want to call her you cannot deny that her methods are...questionable at best.. About the wargs, holy strawman! Just to be clear, if I ever see Jon, for example, purposely using his warging ability to commit political assasinations to further his own ambitions for a crown, rest assured that I will judge it as harshly as I judge Stannis. But if you take the time to analyze my post above, you will be able to see that it is not what I was arguing.

How is Stannis' using shadow assassins any different than Varymyr using his warging abilities to scout and kill for Mance? And how are political assassinations any worse than killing people in battle? Stannis' assassination of Renly saved the lives of soldiers on both sides. The entire point of war is to kill your political opponents and further your ambitions for a crown.

He doesn't care? Then what was all that ridiculous show of having the defeated wildings burned their sticks of weirwood in order to embrace the God of light about? Either he does care or he's a big hypocrite. Personally I lean towards the second option.

The wildlings aren't his men. The reason he did it is because the wildlings need fast-track integration into Westeros. It's one thing to be loyal to a king, it's quite another to be devoted to a messiah. The conversion was supposed to make the new citizens of Westeros personally loyal to Stannis. As usual, he's using a religion he doesn't believe in to further his political ends. There's nothing hypocritical about it, since he's stuck to this position since the beginning.

Saids who? Personally I do not favour leaders who willingly and consciously embraced moral dettachment for the sake of utilitarian purposes. Especially when those purposes are conveniently aligned with their own ambitions and desires. But that's just me. To each his/her own I suppose.

So it would have been more "moral" in your eyes to spare Edric and let the war drag on, killing millions of unknown children in the process? How is that not embracing moral detachment of the sake of utilitarian purposes? And what is wrong with that, anyway? There was no concrete way for Stannis to know whether Mel's plan would work, but he did have some inconclusive evidence, which is why he was so conflicted about the decision. And again, he didn't burn Edric.

He could have saved those millions by simply accepting that he was beaten and a kid would not have need to be burned to death in the process. But this course of action did not involve Stannis getting what he wanted, so yeah, burning the kid was the logical choice. To save millions fo course! Rationalization at its best.

The war would have started and dragged on even if Stannis had surrendered, so no, accepting that he was beaten would not have saved anyone.

So? Does not follow that he would not have done it. Davos seemed convinced enough to risk his own head over the matter, so there must have been some truth in there.

And yet, Stannis did not take Davos' head, or even his lands and titles.

Him not responding to Ned's summons to haul his ass back to KL when Ned was the Hand could be seen as borderline criminal. That's one I can come up with for now.

IIRC Ned requested that Stannis come to KL. It wasn't a direct order.

Laws in Westeros are pretty vague, but I can't say that I was ready to pat the Man on the back when he threatened to take over NW castles by force.

I really don't get the hang-wringing about the NW castles, especially since he did not actually take them. Does everyone forget that the NW couldn't afford to maintain them, let alone man them, and that they needed to be fixed and garrisoned to fight off the Others?

[Ser Pounce FTW]

In fairness it would've also been his life, or at least he certainly thinks that.

Would that have been an excuse if Stannis were hearing it from someone? Wouldn't he talk about that person's duty?

[Bronn Urgandy]

Can we use "in fairness" to excuse our justifications when we are talking about Stannis? His views of justice and servitude are strict enough to not allow much room for it.

Would that have been an excuse if Stannis were hearing it from someone? Wouldn't he talk about that person's duty?

Maybe not, he would expect anybody summoned by the Kings Hand to turn up. Of course, I dont actually recall Ned mentioning that Stannis broke a law, since it seemed more of a "can you come back, please?" as opposed to "the King's Hand summons you." And since we are talking about lawbreaking here...

Still, like I said, we don't know what he had planned, perhaps he hoped to gather more proof and make the accusations in a setting that doesn't end up getting him poisoned. After all, he has to believe that Roberts life is only in danger if he finds out. If Stannis is still planning to expose the Cersie and the children, he is still doing his duty to the King.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Maybe not, he would expect anybody summoned by the Kings Hand to turn up. Of course, I dont actually recall Ned mentioning that Stannis broke a law, since it seemed more of a "can you come back, please?" as opposed to "the King's Hand summons you." And since we are talking about lawbreaking here...

Ned sent several ravens. It wasn't a casual suggestion. But I understand having to look for excuses...

[Antler's Fury]

Ned sent several ravens. It wasn't a casual suggestion. But I understand having to look for excuses...

"Pycelle had sent a raven off across the water, with a polite letter from Ned requesting Lord Stannis to return to his seat on the small council."

Sounds like he was asking, not demanding.