El Guapo Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Again, where do you guys come up with this lol He will burn a sept if it does his campaign good. He won't do it without reason and I doubt he will do it once he is in power and doesn't want to offend people and fuel a rebellion. No he'd rather offend the people and fuel a rebellion (against him) before he wins the iron throne which is a brilliant startegy I must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sharya Stark, on 27 Feb 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:snip I like this post. To OP and others defending Stannis, I'll rephrase my position. Stannis is not a religious zealot. Stannis is a religious terrorist, whether by himself, by proxy of Mel, or by his reputation. Can we agree on that much? Of course we cant… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Except the Red followers don't take kindly to other religions. They have this habit of, ya know, burning them. They cannot co-exist peacefully. Stannis only does because he needs the support of these other faiths if he wants to get anywhere. If he had went to essos and picked up a sizable army of the red faith, I doubt they'd have "co-existed" with the seven or the old gods. Yes, it does make it worse that he doesn't believe in Rhllor but is letting fanatics like Mel, Selyse, and others have influence. He can only curb so much of it. And part of his rule is his reputation, and he was unpopular in the eyes of Westeros before he converted. He looks even worse now because the smallfolk and others have only second hand info. In their eyes he was responsible for the burning of septs, weirwoods, and humans who followed either faith. Stannis is not only making himself a religious zealot by proxy with Mel, he is allowing himself to be known as a religious zealot to the rest of Westeros. Stannis is not personally religious. Stannis allows and even at times encourages religious intolerance and violence. If that doesn't make him a zealot, then I guess he really is this infallible Zeus character some make him out to be. Sort of goes against the popular "everyone is grey" talk that's thrown around, but whatevs. Who cares what the followers of the Red God want to do? They can only go as far as the King allows them, what happens when they ask him to burn an unbeliever? He just says "pray harder." Davos is a follower of the Seven, but he has as much influence in Stannis' court as the Rhalloo followers, again, so long as he keeps a lid on burning the innocent people, and limits the godswood and sept burnings to his own property, then I can't see a problem. Did he burn down all the mountain clans trees? Did he burn the Sept at the Wall? Did he burn the Godswood beyond the wall? If taking up with Rh'lorr is a problem for people, then thats their problem. And its kind of small minded, the BWB weren't all bad, before Stoneheart. If he burns a Sept or Godswood that isn't his, or a party that is innocent (no I don't condone burnings, I wish he'd stop them, but there it is) you will have a point, but right now, you're judging Stannis on things he might do. As to your last paragraph, Stannis doesn't encourage religious violence, he converted in the eyes of the world and burned his old gods, good move? Perhaps not, but they were his to burn. They were wood, Dragonstone belongs to the Red God now, thats all it is. As to the part I bolded, nah, if he had anything to do with Zues he'd have burned himself for being a false god hurhurhurhurhurhurhur! That's pretty cheap, actually, and once people start the whole "Stanstans see no flaw in their favourite character" it usually means they're out of ideas and can't justify their irrational hatred of him, which usually stems from the fact that he dropped a leach into the fire and all their favourite characters died not long after. I expected better. Sharya Stark, on 27 Feb 2014 - 12:39 PM, said: snip I like this post. To OP and others defending Stannis, I'll rephrase my position. Stannis is not a religious zealot. Stannis is a religious terrorist, whether by himself, by proxy of Mel, or by his reputation. Can we agree on that much? Of course we cant… I can agree, the dude needs to cool down on making the Wildlings convert, I mean, it was just a branch of a tree they burnt to symbolise their submission, but people get funny about that sort of thing. And and while the idea of burning Winterfells Godswood comes solely from Mel, Stannis doesn't shut her down, on the other hand Jon never questions it either. Maybe Stannis would relent on the burnings of the trees if that had been part of Jon's price, he hasn't burned any of the others during his northern crusade after all. Getting all funny about Rh'lorr isn't one of the things I like about Stannis, but if he wants to be a part of that set up thats his choice, and if people want to follow him into it, that is there's, for the most part he lets his subordinates worship as they please (even when Seven followers were vastly outnumbered by the Red God followers) and hasn't set fire to property that isn't his. Until he physically crosses that line, I can't hold it against him majorly. Religion needs to be tempered with common sense, so far Stannis has done more of that than going the fanatical route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 As to the part I bolded, nah, if he had anything to do with Zues he'd have burned himself for being a false god hurhurhurhurhurhurhur! That's pretty cheap, actually, and once people start the whole "Stanstans see no flaw in their favourite character" it usually means they're out of ideas and can't justify their irrational hatred of him, which usually stems from the fact that he dropped a leach into the fire and all their favourite characters died not long after. I expected better. I didn't mention the leeches or any other common criticism of Stannis. In fact, there are few things I dislike about him. Just so happens that the aspect I dislike about him most is a big deal. But just as many people defend everything about him as some criticize everything about him. Every other thread, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AintNoStark Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 He has a track record of doing so. What proof do you have that he won't? Your fan biasness is a joke.ETA: Lets not forget he's parading himself around as Azor Ahai, the Lord's Chosen. He has a track record of doing so if it has guaranteed benefits for his campaign. He will not go around wantonly burning septs. This is just the most ridiculous logic I've ever come across. And he is parading himself, or Melisandre is parading him? He hasn't openly stated himself that he is Azor Ahai and is using it for his gain. All these arguments about him being a zealot are just plain stupid and ignorant of obvious fact. And as if things couldn't get any more nonsensical, now comes someone saying he's a terrorist? Lol he is a rebel fighting a military campaign for something we readers know is his by right. If he's a terrorist of any sort, so is Robb and Dany. Even though their wars have way less legitimacy than Stannis' war anyway. I didn't mention the leeches or any other common criticism of Stannis. In fact, there are few things I dislike about him. Just so happens that the aspect I dislike about him most is a big deal. But just as many people defend everything about him as some criticize everything about him. Every other thread, really. Maybe that happens because, um I don't know, the criticisms made against him are just really pathetic and dumb? -Clear from the text that Stannis doesn't worship the red god; critics say he worships the red god-Clear that he had no other option than to slay Renly; critics say he should've bent the knee instead of killing his brother And then when we defend him against these nonsensical criticisms up comes the lazy old cliche of 'You defend him against everything...!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 And as if things couldn't get any more nonsensical, now comes someone saying he's a terrorist? Lol he is a rebel fighting a military campaign for something we readers know is his by right. If he's a terrorist of any sort, so is Robb and Dany. Even though their wars have way less legitimacy than Stannis' war anyway. *mega sigh* who brought up Dany or Robb or anyone else? Who claimed he was the only terrorist? No one. I did not defend anyone else by saying Stannis is a religious terrorist. "Well others are just as a bad, maybe worse," is not an argument. Why isn't Stannis a religious terrorist? That's what you should post. An argument, not a dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AintNoStark Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 *mega sigh* who brought up Dany or Robb or anyone else? Who claimed he was the only terrorist? No one. I did not defend anyone else by saying Stannis is a religious terrorist. "Well others are just as a bad, maybe worse," is not an argument. Why isn't Stannis a religious terrorist? That's what you should post. An argument, not a dismissal. I mentioned them for a reason. I don't believe they're terrorists and the similarity of how they conduct their campaigns to that of Stannis means he isn't one either. Believe or not, Westeros is a place of war. There's no international court of justice or whatever in Martin's word that you go to when someone steals your Throne. You wage war, that's how it is. Stannis is no different from anyone else here and certainly is not a terrorist. Religious terrorist.... Hmmm well you have to take into account that Stannis controls a coalition of two potentially conflict prone factions; red god worshippers and King's Men. He holds them together pretty damn well and if the price for that is burning a sept so be it. But he doesn't burn the sept because he wants to, he does it because he needs to. Similarly, when the red god followers asked him, during their march in the North, to burn someone (can't remember who) he even told them to 'pray harder'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 No. Stannis doesn't get to be excused from the label of religious terrorist because Robb and Dany are leading war campaigns. They have nothing to do with him, and they had different goals, no matter how similar. And he definitely does not get an excuse because "that's juss how Westeros is, brah. it's war and badassery and shit." Just because it's common to them doesn't mean its not terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AintNoStark Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 No. Stannis doesn't get to be excused from the label of religious terrorist because Robb and Dany are leading war campaigns. They have nothing to do with him, and they had different goals, no matter how similar. And he definitely does not get an excuse because "that's juss how Westeros is, brah. it's war and badassery and shit." Just because it's common to them doesn't mean its not terrorism. That's exactly what it means. Westeros is primitive by our real world standards. Women are seen as objects by many, war seen as a matter of pride and something which is normal and just. Stop yanking Stannis out of the universe he was born and bred in just to apply unreasonable standards on him. And Dany's campaign is to gain the Throne she believes (ridiculously) is her family's by right while Robb fights a war for revenge; the latter being an unofficial yet integral part of Stannis' war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 And Dany's campaign is to gain the Throne she believes (ridiculously) is her family's by right while Robb fights a war for revenge; the latter being an unofficial yet integral part of Stannis' war.Lol, Really? Who is Stannis seeking revenge for? The brother he left to die while he hid on Dragonstone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard of the Rainking Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Lol, Really? Who is Stannis seeking revenge for? The brother he left to die while he hid on Dragonstone. What could Stannis have done? If he had told Robert he wouldn't have believed him. He would have risked his life for nothing. Plus Stannis also has a daughter he needs to protect. Edit. Here's a good quote, that sums it up nicely: I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm. Even to Robert. He loved me but little, I know, yet he was my brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 What could Stannis have done? If he had told Robert he wouldn't have believed him. He would have risked his life for nothing. Plus Stannis also has a daughter he needs to protect.Send Shireen to DS to keep her safe, then tell Robert he expects the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. Explain why, and let Robert due with it what he will. He had a duty to his king/brother. I also don't buy the idea Robert would have him killed for claiming the kids weren't his, Robert was a pretty forgiving man. As long as your name isn't Targaryen. Robert was still a young man, something makes me think he'd be ok with a new wife, and a chance to make some heirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AintNoStark Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 Lol, Really? Who is Stannis seeking revenge for? The brother he left to die while he hid on Dragonstone. Revenge for his House maybe? What an incredibly idiotic post. 'The brother he left to die while he hid' yeah he should've run in court screaming LANNISTER TREACHERY and get murdered with 10 to 1 odds in military. Nice idea. Screw the fact that he explicitly mentions in ADWD that he wants to avenge Robert. But this is besides the point anyway. My post was an answer to the unfortunate application of real world moral standards to Stannis and expectations of him to fight his war Gandhi style in Westeros lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard of the Rainking Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Send Shireen to DS to keep her safe, then tell Robert he expects the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. Explain why, and let Robert due with it what he will. He had a duty to his king/brother. I also don't buy the idea Robert would have him killed for claiming the kids weren't his, Robert was a pretty forgiving man. As long as your name isn't Targaryen. Robert was still a young man, something makes me think he'd be ok with a new wife, and a chance to make some heirs. Robert never much loved Stannis, and would most likely have seen it as an attempt move himself further in line of succession. This would also have made Ned's evidence worthless since Robert would believe, that he's in league with Stannis. Plus Littlefinger, Cersei and Varys all have spies all over King's Landing so they would have probably known, that Stannis is going to tell Robert, and none of three want Stannis on the Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Nvm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 This would also have made Ned's evidence worthless since Robert would believe, that he's in league with Stannis.Highly doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard of the Rainking Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Highly doubtful. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 1. Revenge for his House maybe? What an incredibly idiotic post. 'The brother he left to die while he hid' yeah he should've run in court screaming LANNISTER TREACHERY and get murdered with 10 to 1 odds in military. Nice idea. 2.Screw the fact that he explicitly mentions in ADWD that he wants to avenge Robert. 3.But this is besides the point anyway. My post was an answer to the unfortunate application of real world moral standards to Stannis and expectations of him to fight his war Gandhi style in Westeros lol.1.Robert would have the support of most of Westeros if it came to war with the Lannisters. Specifically the Stormlands, the North, and the Vale. They would crush Tywin. 2. He also says he doesn't really even want to be king, and he only is acting out of duty. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.3. What other standards should we use? We don't live in a medieval time period, nor were these books written for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How so?What possible reason would there be for Ned Stark to support Stannis in something like that if it wasn't true? I think Robert knew Ned well enough to know he's not some schemer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard of the Rainking Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 What possible reason would there be for Ned Stark to support Stannis in something like that if it wasn't true? I think Robert knew Ned well enough to know he's not some schemer. Well Ned has been gone out of Robert's life for nine years. People can change in nine years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.