Did Stannis honestly ever have a chance?

[Ser Pounce FTW]

"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.

You're right. Stannis was well within his legal rights to refuse the request of the Hand and was not avoiding his duty to his King. Of course. No one demanded it. It's always different when it comes to Stannis. I get it.

[Bronn Urgandy]

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.

You're right. Stannis was well within his legal rights to refuse the request of the Hand and was not avoiding his duty to his King. Of course. No one demanded it. It's always different when it comes to Stannis. I get it.

Yeah totally right mate. Drop everything, return to KL, tell Ned about the incest and get them both killed. Good plan, that.

Oh right its Stannis, so when he does something that any sane and rational character would do in his shoes, THATS a bad thing. Its okay, its Stannis. I get it.

[Draco_Dracul]

Yeah totally right mate. Drop everything, return to KL, tell Ned about the incest and get them both killed. Good plan, that.

Oh right its Stannis, so when he does something that any sane and rational character would do in his shoes, THATS a bad thing. Its okay, its Stannis. I get it.

It is exactly what any man that cares more about his own neck over his duty to and the well being of the realm would do.

[Antler's Fury]

It is exactly what any man that cares more about his own neck over his duty to and the well being of the realm would do.

Only if such a measure would indeed save the realm, which it wouldn't. Robert would just see it as Stannis attempting to make himself heir to the throne again. Only Jon Arryn or Ned could have gotten away with it, and Stannis had reason to believe that those who knew the truth were being targetted by the Lannisters. Without having enough swords on his side, he couldn't tell Ned without risking the possibility of Ned ending up like Jon Arryn.

[Iona]

Hmm, I'd say we can argue that Stannis expects people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the greater good, so I generally count him not making an appearance at KL against him.

It's fascinating that later on in the story, Stannis expects the kingship to destroy him (he stared at the flames and had that vision of a fiery crown that reduces a king into ashes) and he's still willing to do it. I personally think he saw Viserys, but still, Stannis thinks he'll perish in the end, but is ready to sacrifice himself to save the world. He wasn't ready to risk his behind for his brother, but I see some improvement in him being willing to take one for Team Humankind.

[Sullen]

Only if such a measure would indeed save the realm, which it wouldn't. Robert would just see it as Stannis attempting to make himself heir to the throne again. Only Jon Arryn or Ned could have gotten away with it, and Stannis had reason to believe that those who knew the truth were being targetted by the Lannisters. Without having enough swords on his side, he couldn't tell Ned without risking the possibility of Ned ending up like Jon Arryn.

The Lannisters are not omnipotent/omniscient.

Stannis could have at least tried, and he didn't.

He didn't do his duty, and could even be counted guilty of treason for not informing the King with such vital an information.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

He wasn't ready to risk his behind for his brother, but I see some improvement in him being willing to take one for Team Humankind.

This! And he also expects others to be willing to take one for him while not being willing to do this for his own King. It does indeed show some growth on his part - or hypocrisy. I'm not sure yet.

[Antler's Fury]

He didn't do his duty, and could even be counted guilty of treason for not informing the King with such vital an information.

His duty was to do what was best for his king, which sometimes involves not telling him things. Do you think Ned should have been held guilty of treason for not telling Robert the truth on his deathbed? Unlike Stannis, he had no good reason not to. How about Davos, for not telling Stannis about his plan to hide Edric Storm? Or Wyman Manderly for lying about killing Davos?

He wasn't ready to risk his behind for his brother,

Sure he was. He risked it during Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion. He just wasn't willing to risk it without Robert actually benefiting from the risk.

This! And he also expects others to be willing to take one for him while not being willing to do this for his own King.

If he wasn't willing then he wouldn't have investigated Cersei's children in the first place.

[Iona]

How about Davos, for not telling Stannis about his plan to hide Edric Storm? Or Wyman Manderly for lying about killing Davos?

Well, Davos was guilty as hell and came pretty close to receiving a dose of the king's justice.

And you will need to take that one about Manderly back, he's well within his rights to keep secrets from the Man since Stannis is not his king.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Stannis could have at least tried, and he didn't.

He didn't do his duty, and could even be counted guilty of treason for not informing the King with such vital an information.

Trying it would cause more harm then damage. The only good thing Stannis could have done was backing Jon Arryn when he would tell Robert about the Twincest. Because Jon Arryn was like a father to him.

What is Robert to make of the following situation: Stannis makes his accusations against the Lannisters, which, if true, conveniently make him the heir to the throne, and he does it right after Jon Arryn mysteriously dies Robert decides to not make him his Hand.

Does anything seem strange about this? Stannis is not stupid and knows that Robert is not that stupid. He also knows that he does not trust him, otherwise, why would he travel across half of Westeros to make an other man Hand?

Therefore it was safe for Stannis to assume, that by revealing the truth he would only make sure that the accusation of the Twincest would be forever associated with his own (presumably criminal!) ambition, drastically reducing the chance of the truth ever being accepted.

[Antler's Fury]

Well, Davos was guilty as hell and came pretty close to receiving a dose of the king's justice

...and then he didn't, implying that Stannis was at least tacitly okay with it.

And you will need to take that one about Manderly back, he's well within his rights to keep secrets from the Man since Stannis is not his king.

But he promises to accept Stannis as his king once Davos brings back Rickon. So assuming that Davos succeds and Manderly keeps his word, would it be okay for Stannis to punish him for jailing his Hand and nearly killing him, and then lying about killing him? My point is that sometimes the King's advisors have to do important stuff without telling the King.

[Bronn Urgandy]

It is exactly what any man that cares more about his own neck over his duty to and the well being of the realm would do.

Why die in what you know will be a failed attempt, that'll leave Cersie as queen and the "abominations" as heirs, when you can wait and succeed? Stannis is still doing his duty and happily not being a fucking idiot in the process.

Hmm, I'd say we can argue that Stannis expects people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the greater good, so I generally count him not making an appearance at KL against him.

It's fascinating that later on in the story, Stannis expects the kingship to destroy him (he stared at the flames and had that vision of a fiery crown that reduces a king into ashes) and he's still willing to do it. I personally think he saw Viserys, but still, Stannis thinks he'll perish in the end, but is ready to sacrifice himself to save the world. He wasn't ready to risk his behind for his brother, but I see some improvement in him being willing to take one for Team Humankind.

I think Stannis has never asked anyone to die for something he knows will fail. Every action he partakes in has been winnable Unlike returning to KL.

The Lannisters are not omnipotent/omniscient.

Stannis could have at least tried, and he didn't.

He didn't do his duty, and could even be counted guilty of treason for not informing the King with such vital an information.

What I said to Draco. Seriously, why die for nothing?

This! And he also expects others to be willing to take one for him while not being willing to do this for his own King. It does indeed show some growth on his part - or hypocrisy. I'm not sure yet.

Like I said, he doesnt ask people to die for nothing.

[Iona]

But he promises to accept Stannis as his king once Davos brings back Rickon. So assuming that Davos succeds and Manderly keeps his word, would it be okay for Stannis to punish him for jailing his Hand and nearly killing him, and then lying about killing him? My point is that sometimes the King's advisors have to do important stuff without telling the King.

Hey hey hey, at this point Manderly doesn't owe Stannis anything, he's not sworn to him yet. And, we know that even Stannis doesn't punish the lords that come over to his side for the crimes they did while they were sworn to Renly.

[Antler's Fury]

Hey hey hey, at this point Manderly doesn't owe Stannis anything, he's not sworn to him yet. And, we know that even Stannis doesn't punish the lords that come over to his side for the crimes they did while they were sworn to Renly.

I'm not saying he should. I'm saying that Sullen Sellsword's holding Stannis up to an ideal that he's not holding anyone else up to.

[Iona]

I think Stannis has never asked anyone to die for something he knows will fail. Every action he partakes in has been winnable Unlike returning to KL.

Raising yourself as a king and then demanding your lords to gather up their forces and go to war for you by definition is asking people to die for you, and that is what I meant here. Thinking about whether you will succeed or fail doesn't come into it, people die in battles.

He's constantly thought of as the underdog, so I'd say there have been plenty of situations where people acknowledge that "this could end badly". I'm willing to bet that the night before Stannis and Renly were supposed to meet at the field of battle plenty of people had a bad feeling. :)

[Winterfellian]

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.

Ruling style? Did I missed Jon and Jaime becoming Kings. I stated rather clearly that stories such as Jaime, Jon ad even Barristan encourages to reflect whether a blind adherence to the law produce net positive results or results that are compatible with what is perceive as morally right, even within story.

If the narrative itself is encouraging us to see past face value and analyze whether a blind law adherence to the laws, honor codes and oaths in the 7 Kingdoms is actually a postive thing, especially when weighted against the negative consequences it might bring upon others, then why should we blindly accept Stannis's adherence to the system (a system that has proven faulty time and time again) as a positve thing? There is no need to resort to any God figure to sort all this out, merely a deeper analysis of the text.

Laws are important and in times of normalcy they are good guidelines for social behavior. But in troubled times, when the situation becomes too muddy to sort everything into these neat black and white categories in which Stannis and his followers like to comparmentalize everything? As Barristan tells us, a blind followng of the law in such ciescumtance, can leave to a life of regret after having, perhaps unwittingly, contributed to the strenghtening of the opressor and the strong over that of the victims and the weak.

Oh about me following the law in real life, LOL, do not fret yourself. I don't have a criminal record of any sort. However, coming from a country that has seen coup d'etats, dictatorships, and the like, where the laws where conveniently bend to favor those in power I like to think that if our congress ever passeds a law that goes against what my conscience dictate is morally wrong, like say favouring discrimanation of any kind. I like to think that I will be smart enough to recognize it and at least strong enough to not be like a sheep and merely comply just because "is the law"

[Draco_Dracul]

Why die in what you know will be a failed attempt, that'll leave Cersie as queen and the "abominations" as heirs, when you can wait and succeed? Stannis is still doing his duty and happily not being a fucking idiot in the process.

As apposed to what he actually did, that left Cersie as Queen regent and Joffery as king?

What was his plan before Joffery pissed off the North, wait until Robert died and then all 7 kingdoms with just 5000 men?

Even if you take the idea that staying in King's Landing is a 100% death sentence, he could have gone to Ned Stark, (either in person, via raven, or by sending Davos) gotten there weeks before the king and said he had reason to believe that Jon Arryn was killed be the Lannisters.

[Iona]

I'm not saying he should. I'm saying that Sullen Sellsword's holding Stannis up to an ideal that he's not holding anyone else up to.

I feel that comparing Stannis to others and vice versa tends to be fruitless, who cares about the other kings anyway. I much more prefer holding Stannis up to his own ideals. I'm interested in Stannis vs. Stannis, as to whether he practices as he preaches.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Raising yourself as a king and then demanding your lords to gather up their forces and go to war for you by definition is asking people to die for you, and that is what I meant here. Thinking about whether you will succeed or fail doesn't come into it, people die in battles.

He's constantly thought of as the underdog, so I'd say there have been plenty of situations where people acknowledge that "this could end badly". I'm willing to bet that the night before Stannis and Renly were supposed to meet at the field of battle plenty of people had a bad feeling. :)

I agree with you, but Stannis himself is in those situations with his men. Ergo he is not asking things of people that he himself would not do, there is a difference between possible death with a chance of success, or even certain death with a chance of success (a sacrifice I think he'll make before it is done) than certain death AND certain failure, which is what returning to KL would've been and its not something I've seen him ask of anybody.

I liked your point about the crown destroying him but kept quiet because I am trying to reel in the Stannis love lol

[Antler's Fury]

As apposed to what he actually did, that left Cersie as Queen regent and Joffery as king?

What was his plan before Joffery pissed off the North, wait until Robert died and then all 7 kingdoms with just 5000 men?

Take the Stormlords, killing Renly if necessary, and attack KL. It nearly worked, too, and was a much better plan than strolling into KL alone, preaching treason. The reason it didn't work is because Robert gave Stannis so little to work with. He did not give him the Stormlands, and did not make him Hand, or even Warden of the East. Stannis can't save Robert or his legacy if Robert is so determined to let the Lannisters have everything.