Stannis, Renly and kinslaying.

[Nyrhex]

Exactly. They're called kinslayers by peolpe who are hardly unbiased.

And?

What is kinslaying?

[Lee-Sensei]

And?

What is kinslaying?

Again. Kinslaying is killing a close blood relative.

[falcotron]

Stannis allying with the Tyrells was simply never happening, they are natural enemies. And whoever the Tyrells support, wins.

You could argue that Stannis winning could only happen with a power shift within the Reach, and maybe also between Dorne and the Reach, but even if that's true, neither of those is actually impossible.

And I'm not even sure that's true. Imagine what would have happened in Tywin hadn't been delayed on his march west. Stannis would have taken King's Landing and arrested Joffrey. That very nearly happened. And what would have happened next?

Would the Tyrells have stuck with the Lannisters to reconquer the throne? That's a lot harder than just holding a throne they already have, and there's no guarantee there will even be someone for Margy to marry if they succeed. Would they have made common cause with other Targ loyalists (Dorne?!) to overthrow the Baratheons and set up a regency until they could get Dany to come home? Would they have invaded on their own, with no cause to rally support to their side, and set up a Protectorate?

I think in that case the Tyrells' best chance would have been to play the long game—throw in with Stannis, marry one of their sons to Shireen, and give themselves time and breathing room to plot to take control of the kingdom out of Stannis's hands.

… besides, suffice that Stannis has a son and the whole deal is moot as Shireen never becomes Queen. Not to mention that this arrangement implies that the Tyrells have to wait several years before they get their King consort…

If only the Tyrells had the capability to, say, assassinate a King and pin the blame on someone else. That would be a great way to make sure Stannis never produced a male heir to trump Shireen, and to make sure Shireen sat the throne when they were ready instead of when Stannis was, and to eliminate any new rival. Too bad such a thing is impossible.

[Sullen]

You could argue that Stannis winning could only happen with a power shift within the Reach, and maybe also between Dorne and the Reach, but even if that's true, neither of those is actually impossible.

The Dornishmen are strongly in the Targ camp, and Stannis wouldn't have won, the Tyrells would have moved against him, just like they did in the series.

And I'm not even sure that's true. Imagine what would have happened in Tywin hadn't been delayed on his march west. Stannis would have taken King's Landing and arrested Joffrey. That very nearly happened. And what would have happened next?

Tywin would have crowned Tommen, who was hidden away at Rosby, and then would have offered him to the Tyrells.

Would the Tyrells have stuck with the Lannisters to reconquer the throne? That's a lot harder than just holding a throne they already have, and there's no guarantee there will even be someone for Margy to marry if they succeed. Would they have made common cause with other Targ loyalists (Dorne?!) to overthrow the Baratheons and set up a regency until they could get Dany to come home? Would they have invaded on their own, with no cause to rally support to their side, and set up a Protectorate?

The Tyrells don't seem to know about the Targ reinsurgence, taking the Throne is not especially difficult, whoever has the Throne automatically becomes the main concern of those who want it/want independence from it. That means that once he has the Throne, Stannis becomes the target of both the Northmen (who likely simply head back North to fortify) and the Lannister/Tyrell alliance (who disengages from the North to deal with the more pressing matter of reconquering the Throne).

I think in that case the Tyrells' best chance would have been to play the long game—throw in with Stannis, marry one of their sons to Shireen, and give themselves time and breathing room to plot to take control of the kingdom out of Stannis's hands.

Why wait? Marrying Marge to Joffrey was instantaneous and turned out just perfectly. The Kingdom being in a state of war, a powershift was also easier. If they wait, Stannis might have the time to reinforce his grasp on power.

If only the Tyrells had the capability to, say, assassinate a King and pin the blame on someone else. That would be a great way to make sure Stannis never produced a male heir to trump Shireen, and to make sure Shireen sat the throne when they were ready instead of when Stannis was, and to eliminate any new rival. Too bad such a thing is impossible.

Again, why go with a King that is suspicious, could possibly have a better heir, doesn't like you, and has to die for you to get power, when you can simply marry Joffrey and be done with it?

They went with the choice that was the safest, the quickest, and that offered the most rewards.

[Nyrhex]

Again. Kinslaying is killing a close blood relative.

KINSLAYING IN WESTEROS

A ton of us Boarders have been debating the taboo against kinslaying in Westeros, and have been trying to define exactly what "kinslaying" is. Is it limited only to the situation where you kill a kinsman by your own hand, or would it include anything that leads to the death of a kinsman? In other words, had Renly's army defeated Stannis', and Stannis died in the battle at the hands of Loras Tyrell, would Renly still be considered a "kinslayer"?

Maybe by some, but that's a stretch. There are degrees in kinslaying, as in anything else. Fighting a battle in which a brother dies might be frowned upon, but killing him with your own hand would be considered far worse. In the scenario you propose, another factor might be whether Renly gave any orders in respect to Stannis. Did he command Loras to kill him, or offer a reward to whosoever slew his brother? Did he tell his men to see that his brother was taken alive? Did he not address the issue either way? There are obvious degrees of guilt, depending... The other factor, which you haven't raised, is degree of kinship. Killing a parent is probably worse than killing a sibling, but either one is a lot worse than killing a distant cousin. Lord Karstark was stretching that aspect of it when he tried to accuse Robb of kinslaying... but of course he was hoping to save his head.

Notice that GRRM's reply explains how people see kinslaying, not how the god/s/ess/esses do.

So, the books give us a very vague, and at sometimes contradictory version of kinslaying, based on how people see it. GRRM does not help by adding degrees of kinslaying. If Stannis kills Renly by ordering Mel to kill Renly, but no one knows, does that somehow gets him off the hook becasue people don't consider him a kinslayer? If Karstarks calling Robb and Jon kinslayers is "streching", does that mean that it has some legitimacy, even a 1,000 years after the bloodline separated?

I have raised it earlier that Theon is no longer considered "forbidden to kill" by Robb or other Starks. Roose Bolton has a harder time to get to that point, and he still considers killing Ramsay as possibly kinslaying.

If Stannis went to SE because Mel told him that his brother is going to die and his bannermen would flock to Stannis, is it the same as stabbing Renly by his own hand? If calling Stannis' death in battle a "strech" of the term kinslayer, is Stannis going to SE and bringing Mel not the same "strech" to call kinslaying (assuming that he was only seeing the vision in spectator mode, or he was actually having a dragon/green/whatever-dream or some other vision that does not actually have anything to do with controlling the shadow)?

[falcotron]

Tywin would have crowned Tommen, who was hidden away at Rosby, and then would have offered him to the Tyrells.

He would have crowned Tommen with Joffrey still alive?

And, even if he had, a claimant King Tommen in Rosby who needs an army to conquer the throne for him is nowhere near as attractive as a sitting King Joffrey in King's Landing who only needs help defending it. That's why the situation would have been massively different for the Tyrells.

The Tyrells don't seem to know about the Targ reinsurgence, taking the Throne is not especially difficult, whoever has the Throne automatically becomes the main concern of those who want it/want independence from it. That means that once he has the Throne, Stannis becomes the target of both the Northmen (who likely simply head back North to fortify) and the Lannister/Tyrell alliance (who disengages from the North to deal with the more pressing matter of reconquering the Throne).

Taking the Throne is not especially difficult? Really? Besides the tactical benefit of defending a castle vs. besieging it, there's a huge political advantage in being the actual sitting kinga lot more people will taking Stannis seriously and either join him or sit things out instead of joining the Lannisters if he's the one on the Throne.

And the rest of your argument makes no sense. How does becoming the target of the Northmen affect Stannis in any way if they're heading back North to fortify? Sure, in the long run he has to deal with them, but he's not going to march out of KL to throw his armies against MC while he's still got the Lannisters to deal with. So it's just the Lannisters against Stannis, with Stannis entrenched in the castle instead of the other way around.

Why wait? Marrying Marge to Joffrey was instantaneous and turned out just perfectly.

Yes, but we're talking about the scenario where Stannis has conquered KL and taken Joffrey prisoner, so that clearly isn't an option. (OK, maybe they could have held a wedding in absentia and claimed that Margy was now Joffrey's Queen, but what good would that have done?)

Again, why go with a King that is suspicious, could possibly have a better heir, doesn't like you, and has to die for you to get power, when you can simply marry Joffrey and be done with it?

Because you can't "simply" marry Joffrey; you first have to conquer KL, overthrow the sitting King, and hope that you can recover Joffrey safely in the ensuing chaos for that to even be a possibility. All that, just to get on the good side of the Lannisters? That's an awful lot more risk.

Meanwhile, you think Tywin actually liked the Tyrells, or that they cared either way? Their hold on him was that he needed them, and they knew it, and they'd have the exact same hold on Stannis if he were the king they were defending.

They went with the choice that was the safest, the quickest, and that offered the most rewards.

You're again completely ignoring the hypothetical situation that you're supposedly addressing. If Tywin hadn't been delayed on his march west, he wouldn't have been able to meet up with the Tyrells and lift the siege, and Stannis would have taken KL and arrested Joffrey. So sure, they'd still go with the choice that was safest, quickest, and most rewarding in that scenario, but it wouldn't be the same choice.

[Talleyrand]

The only fact about Stannis is that his threads are the fastest ever.

Simple maths: do you want a topic to get to 21 pages within the week? = put Stannis or Dany in the title

[Nyrhex]

Simple maths: do you want a topic to get to 21 pages within the week? = put Stannis or Dany in the title

Want to see a thread reach 21 pages within 24 hours? Put Stannis and Dany in the title.

[Lee-Sensei]

KINSLAYING IN WESTEROS

A ton of us Boarders have been debating the taboo against kinslaying in Westeros, and have been trying to define exactly what "kinslaying" is. Is it limited only to the situation where you kill a kinsman by your own hand, or would it include anything that leads to the death of a kinsman? In other words, had Renly's army defeated Stannis', and Stannis died in the battle at the hands of Loras Tyrell, would Renly still be considered a "kinslayer"?

Maybe by some, but that's a stretch. There are degrees in kinslaying, as in anything else. Fighting a battle in which a brother dies might be frowned upon, but killing him with your own hand would be considered far worse. In the scenario you propose, another factor might be whether Renly gave any orders in respect to Stannis. Did he command Loras to kill him, or offer a reward to whosoever slew his brother? Did he tell his men to see that his brother was taken alive? Did he not address the issue either way? There are obvious degrees of guilt, depending... The other factor, which you haven't raised, is degree of kinship. Killing a parent is probably worse than killing a sibling, but either one is a lot worse than killing a distant cousin. Lord Karstark was stretching that aspect of it when he tried to accuse Robb of kinslaying... but of course he was hoping to save his head.

Notice that GRRM's reply explains how people see kinslaying, not how the god/s/ess/esses do.

So, the books give us a very vague, and at sometimes contradictory version of kinslaying, based on how people see it. GRRM does not help by adding degrees of kinslaying. If Stannis kills Renly by ordering Mel to kill Renly, but no one knows, does that somehow gets him off the hook becasue people don't consider him a kinslayer? If Karstarks calling Robb and Jon kinslayers is "streching", does that mean that it has some legitimacy, even a 1,000 years after the bloodline separated?

I have raised it earlier that Theon is no longer considered "forbidden to kill" by Robb or other Starks. Roose Bolton has a harder time to get to that point, and he still considers killing Ramsay as possibly kinslaying.

If Stannis went to SE because Mel told him that his brother is going to die and his bannermen would flock to Stannis, is it the same as stabbing Renly by his own hand? If calling Stannis' death in battle a "strech" of the term kinslayer, is Stannis going to SE and bringing Mel not the same "strech" to call kinslaying (assuming that he was only seeing the vision in spectator mode, or he was actually having a dragon/green/whatever-dream or some other vision that does not actually have anything to do with controlling the shadow)?

1) Theon was already okay to kill. If Balon rebelled it meant his head. Those were the understood terms of their agreement. Theon isn't a kinslayer.

2) Karstark was reaching to save his neck as GRRM said himself. By that logic I suspect that most every noble who's fought in a war is a kinslayer, as they're all probably related to an extent.

[falcotron]

If Stannis went to SE because Mel told him that his brother is going to die and his bannermen would flock to Stannis, is it the same as stabbing Renly by his own hand? If calling Stannis' death in battle a "strech" of the term kinslayer, is Stannis going to SE and bringing Mel not the same "strech" to call kinslaying

I think you're ignoring the whole "degrees of kinslaying" part of GRRM's response, and that's the main point of it.

What Stannis did is not the same stretch as what Renly might hypothetically have done. It is _a_ stretch, but that still leaves open the massive question of whether it's a much smaller stretch, a much larger one, or about the same.

And all of the same issues that GRRM brought up apply here as well. Did Stannis know Mel was going to kill Renly when he brought her to SE? Did he know when he helped her create the shadow baby? Or maybe just suspect? Did he give any orders in regard to killing Renly? Did he participate directly in any way? (Does seeing through the eyes of the shadow baby count, if Mel is the one actually directing it? Could he have taken control of it? Did he know he could have done so?)

And, if you're talking about what others think of Stannis instead of what Stannis thinks of himself, how much of that is anyone else aware of?

All of these questions make it obvious that there is not a yes or no answer to "Is Stannis a kinslayer?", and that the question of what degree of kinslaying was involved is both far more important and far harder to answer.

[The Kinkslayer]

Want to see a thread reach 21 pages within 24 hours? Put Stannis and Dany in the title.

add Sansa and you are set.

[JLE]

Except, I don't believe that there ARE actual real gods or goddesses with their own agenda.

There is, however, religion, and there is belief, and belief is a powerful focus for, well, power. Both standard temporal power (look how much "clout" the High Septon has, should he choose to use it, as the current High Sparrow does), and, potentially, even supernatural power which, in the case of religion, is attributed to what we call "divinity", and thus develops the idea of gods: in the case of other esoteric and arcane studies, it is attributed to what we call "magic", and thus develops the idea of wizards.

Renly most certainly would not have mourned if Stannis were to die: he was openly in arms against Stannis: and while Robert might not have favoured Stannis while Robert lived, after Robert's death, the general customs of inheritance would have placed Stannis ahead of Renly in any queue. No matter whether the prize was Storm's End, Dragonstone or King's Landing: no matter whether Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella were legitimate (and thus classed ahead of Stannis in the order of precedence), or bastard (and thus had no place in the order at all.

Robert was, of course at liberty to legally disinherit his brother and remove him from the line of succession, either by decree or in his will. He did neither. Therefore, even in the matter of who was lord of Storm's End, it was the duty of Renly to defer to Stannis - and indeed, believing Joffrey to be legitimate, to defer to Joffrey: and, when Stannis came along saying that Joffrey was a bastard, to *choose between the two* on the basis of whoever he believed was telling the truth, NOT to try and sweep both out of the way and seize power himself.

Stannis himself had it right: good and true men would fight and die for Joffrey believing him to be the rightful king, just as good and true men (notably the Tyrells and Martells) had fought for Aerys and Rhaegar and could not be justly condemned for it. A northman might even say the same for Robb Stark. But those who fought for Renly did so, knowing perfectly well that Renly was a rebel, and a rebel without just cause either, since Joffrey had done no wrong to Renly, and (being underage) could not be held responsible for the decisions of his adult controllers, the Lannisters.

In fact a perfectly valid available position, that would have legalised Renly's position in public view, would have been "to save the Boy King Joffrey from the evil advice of the Lannisters who seek to usurp power" (which is pretty much a version of the advice he offered Ned, although his intention was to seize power and rule through Joffrey himself.) Of course, nobody actually chose that position as their cause for war. Robb Stark came closest, accepting that even if Joffrey was evil and unjust (as were the Lannisters who wanted to rule through him), he was still king, and Tommen would be king after him, and Robb did not want to appear a rebel. So long as he remained in the Riverlands and North, he could claim to be there as a protector against those (Lannisters, or at least Gregor Clegane's brigands) who had broken the peace of the realm, but the moment he set foot outside the Riverlands to go on the offensive, or seek to turn Joffrey off the throne, he would become a rebel and traitor.

*That* was why the Northern Declaration of Independence, as made by the Greatjon and backed by Rickard Karstark, offered an alternative option: declaring the North independent made it a war *between* realms, not a rebellion *within* the realm. Politically it actually made sense in a situation where Joffrey was the rightful king (as was believed, at the time, by everybody except Stannis, since Ned Stark and Jon Arryn had both died before they could reveal it.) Had Robb known that Joffrey was a bastard *before* the declaration of independence, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would have declared for Stannis at once.

(Incidentally - Stannis acknowledging that honest men could fight for Joffrey and still be deemed honest, just as they had fought for Aerys and could still be deemed honest, paints a very, VERY different picture of the man, compared to the one painted by the likes of Renly, Varys and Littlefinger, who all tell Ned that Stannis would try and punish the Martells, Tyrells and Greyjoys for past offences. The Martells and Tyrells had been the loyalists, and Stannis the most reluctant of rebels: Renly has persuaded the Tyrells that Stannis would have punished them, but I genuinely believe that is not, in fact, true. Only the Greyjoys - rebels in anybody's book - would have had anything to fear, other than the Lannisters themselves, had Renly backed Stannis.)

[Nyrhex]

1) Theon was already okay to kill. If Balon rebelled it meant his head. Those were the understood terms of their agreement. Theon isn't a kinslayer.

2) Karstark was reaching to save his neck as GRRM said himself. By that logic I suspect that most every noble who's fought in a war is a kinslayer, as they're all probably related to an extent.

1. If he is ok to kill, he is ok to kill Starks too. Clearly, he is not ok to do the latter, so by the same logic it is not ok to do the former.

2. To some degree, plenty are. Again, it shows how arbitrary the term is.

I think you're ignoring the whole "degrees of kinslaying" part of GRRM's response, and that's the main point of it.

What Stannis did is not the same stretch as what Renly might hypothetically have done. It is _a_ stretch, but that still leaves open the massive question of whether it's a much smaller stretch, a much larger one, or about the same.

And all of the same issues that GRRM brought up apply here as well. Did Stannis know Mel was going to kill Renly when he brought her to SE? Did he know when he helped her create the shadow baby? Or maybe just suspect? Did he give any orders in regard to killing Renly? Did he participate directly in any way? (Does seeing through the eyes of the shadow baby count, if Mel is the one actually directing it? Could he have taken control of it? Did he know he could have done so?)

And, if you're talking about what others think of Stannis instead of what Stannis thinks of himself, how much of that is anyone else aware of?

All of these questions make it obvious that there is not a yes or no answer to "Is Stannis a kinslayer?", and that the question of what degree of kinslaying was involved is both far more important and far harder to answer.

...

I think I just said the exact same thing. If the answear depends on the answears to those questions, then no, there is no simple yes or no answear to the question "is Stannis a kinslayer?". If we don't exactly know what was the level of involvement, we don't know if Stannis would be seen by many or by few as a kinslayer. Since right now he is seen as such by a handfull (UnCat, Brienne, Loras and Jaime perhaps), then it matters little. Westeros does not consider him a kinslayer. Hell, even Davos, who was right there and saw a shadow shaped like Stannis coming out of Mel, tells Stannis that Mel killed Renly. We have Catelyn who sees shadow Stannis and goes "Stannis did it", and we have Davos seeing the same thing, including where it came from, and also knows of Stannis' dreams, going "Mel did it". Why is Cat's version the one that some people go with?

[Lee-Sensei]

1. If he is ok to kill, he is ok to kill Starks too. Clearly, he is not ok to do the latter, so by the same logic it is not ok to do the former.

2. To some degree, plenty are. Again, it shows how arbitrary the term is.

1) Theon was there to be killed. That was the whole point of bringing him to Winterfell. He wasn't there kin and the Northerners are reaching because they hate him. The only way Theon is a kinslayer is if one of the miller's wifes sons was his.

2) The common ancestor of the Robb and Rickard was from 1000 years before the present storyline. That's reaching if I've ever heard it and outside of Karstarks, no one considers Robb a kinslayer. Compare it to Tyrion who's widely accepted as a kinslayer for "killing" Joffrey and Tywin.

[Salt 'n' Gravy]

I think the primary reason Cersei gets less shit for kinslaying than Stannis is her attempt on Tyrion's life wasn't successful. Also, we expect Cersei to be evil but Stannis sees himself as a good man.

I don't think it was Cersei who tried to gave Ser Mandon his orders. House Moore is from the Vale and so is our #1 favorite schemer: Littlefinger! My personal theory is that back when Jon Arryn was hand, Littlefinger used his "special relationship" with Lysa Tully/Arryn to get Jon Arryn to suggest one of Littlefinger's men to the Kingsguard.

Cersei did have a motive to kill Tyrion, but at that point even if it looked as if she was in no way involved with Tyrion's death, it would still make Jaime sad, and he was one of the few people besides herself that she cares about. It was only after Joffrey's death, the demise of the only other person she cared about, that in her mind and in the minds of everyone else there (but that of the actual poisoner) was the work of Tyrion, that she really wanted him dead, and who cares what Jaime thinks.

On the contrast, Littlefinger did have an immediate and pressing motive to rid himself of Tyrion. If Tyrion or Tywin or anyone else found out that he'd been the one to start the war by telling Lady Stark his little fable about the dagger, Littlefinger's head would be used as a wall decoration on the Red Keep's walls by the break of day. So given that no one thought of Littlefinger when it came to deciphering Ser Mandon's motives, I'd say Littlefinger had nothing to use but a knight of the Kingsguard (But he already had a replacement for him in Ser Osmund Kettleblack) and everything to gain by assassinating Tyrion.

By the way, one of the biggest plot holes in Clash of Kings is Tyrion not taking out Littlefinger when he had the chance. I mean, Tywin did give him free reign when it came to spike decorations for Maegor's Holdfast. As much as I am an insufferable book purist, the show did do a good move by keeping him out of Tyrion's crosshairs with his missions to Harrenhal and Renly's camp.

[falcotron]

By the way, one of the biggest plot holes in Clash of Kings is Tyrion not taking out Littlefinger when he had the chance.

I don't think it's necessarily a plot hole; in fact, it may even be intentional irony.

I'd have to reread the chapters, but if I remember right, Tyrion thought of him as just a minor pawn of Cersei's, not a dangerous player in his own right. Tyrion's story at that point is all about how everyone underestimates him—he complains about it incessantly, tries to fight it, and occasionally even uses it to his advantage. To have him underestimate Littlefinger in the exact same way makes for a great story.

Unless I'm remembering wrong, in which case I guess it wasn't such a great story. :)

[A Man Has Said]

Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already grey. Darkness compared with Renly's tent, which was not only lit by candles, but was now also on fire.

"Begin to lighten" means that it's moments to sunlight. Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already "predawn gloom", when the sun is almost rising.

You make an arbitrary line that Renly still had time to back down, even when the time had come "before dawn", and Renly is not even out of the tent. The shadow does not need to come at Dawn, since that is past the deadline.

<snip>

It's not moments to sunlight when the sky begins to lighten before dawn. It's from 15 minutes to half an hour, depending on the season. It being mid-July when this happened it would be closer to half an hour.

“I was still abed when he died. Your Devan will tell you. He tried to wake me. Dawn was nigh and my lords were waiting, fretting. I should have been ahorse, armored. I knew Renly would attack at break of day. Devan says I thrashed and cried out, but what does it matter? It was a dream. I was in my tent when Renly died, and when I woke my hands were clean.”

~ Stannis Baratheon, describing his experience to Davos

So Stannis himself admits that it was not yet dawn. "Dawn was nigh.." Renly would attack at break of day."

I would think that you would take that at least as authority that it was BEFORE DAWN when Renly was killed.

And why was Stannis not armored and ahorse, or at least preparing to be if he thought that an attack from Renly was imminent? Huh?

Could it be because the Red Witch had already informed him of his role in the assassination, and that as long as he stayed asleep 'Dreaming' Renly would not be alive to press that attack?

As to the rest of it, it sounds very much like the excuses of a man who knew full well he was guilty to me.

But not quite so guilty that he didn't turn around and do the same thing to Cortney Penrose a few days later.

[falcotron]

… no, there is no simple yes or no answear to the question "is Stannis a kinslayer?" … We have Catelyn who sees shadow Stannis and goes "Stannis did it", and we have Davos seeing the same thing, including where it came from, and also knows of Stannis' dreams, going "Mel did it". Why is Cat's version the one that some people go with?

Because some people want a direct and unambiguous answer: Stannis did it, or he didn't. Cat gives us a solid "yes" as the answer; Davos gives us a "no, but he wasn't completely without responsibility, but that's not his fault." (I'm ignoring the additional fact that some people want not just a direct answer, but a particular direct answer that exalts or opinions a particular character…)

I understand why a lot of people think that way; I don't understand why such people so enjoy ASoIaF, a series that goes out of its way to avoid clear answers to anything, most of all to questions of morality and responsibility. But that obviously isn't the only thing the series has going for it, and anyway, it's certainly not for me to tell anyone they can't read and enjoy it just because I can't understand it.

[A Man Has Said]

Because some people want a direct and unambiguous answer: Stannis did it, or he didn't. Cat gives us a solid "yes" as the answer; Davos gives us a "no, but he wasn't completely without responsibility, but that's not his fault." (I'm ignoring the additional fact that some people want not just a direct answer, but a particular direct answer that exalts or opinions a particular character…)

I understand why a lot of people think that way; I don't understand why such people so enjoy ASoIaF, a series that goes out of its way to avoid clear answers to anything, most of all to questions of morality and responsibility. But that obviously isn't the only thing the series has going for it, and anyway, it's certainly not for me to tell anyone they can't read and enjoy it just because I can't understand it.

I agree. :agree:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

~ William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming"

[Winterfell is Burning]

By the way, one of the biggest plot holes in Clash of Kings is Tyrion not taking out Littlefinger when he had the chance. I mean, Tywin did give him free reign when it came to spike decorations for Maegor's Holdfast. As much as I am an insufferable book purist, the show did do a good move by keeping him out of Tyrion's crosshairs with his missions to Harrenhal and Renly's camp.

Also, on the show Catelyn never reveals who told her about the dagger; Tyrion could even suspect LF, but not know for sure.