Stannis burning people vs Arys burning people

[John Doe]

1 hour ago, Abdallah said:

1. Only crown prince i mentioned was Rhaegar.

2. The fuck he does. If he respected the religion of his subjects he wouldn't burn the sept of Dragonstone nor the Godswood of Stormsend. U think the wildlings will be loyal to stannis after he forced converted them? He doesn't deserve their loyalty. A REAL king would have said "your religion is ur own affair, I have Kingsmen who follow the 7 and the Old Gods and Queens men who follow Rhollar. You have a choice, make me your king and come to the Gift as my subjects, or go back and find a new king beyond the wall. If you join me and are loyal to me i will protect you until my dying breath. It is time to stop fighting between the Watch and the Wildlings, join me and we shall defeat the Others". 

Instead Stannis the unworthy humiliates them and forces them to denounce their religion. I'm sorry I believe in religious freedom and if he only wants Rhollar followers he can fuck off to the free cities with his red bitch. I don't trust him with the Sept of Baelor and btw imprisioning a septon for defending his religion is an outrage. 

3. Yeah it benifits his cause as his Queens men are fucking savages who like to burn people. 

As you say, Stannis has kingsmen who follow the Seven and the Old Gods, so he has a pretty religiously diverse following. Not the kind you would expect of the religious zealot you want him to be. Your point about the Septon is laughable.

I don't think that being a savage benefits his cause, but to each their own conclusions.

45 minutes ago, Grissom said:

There was a thread the other day comparing Stannis to Viserys. Now this. Stannis haters are getting more imaginative. I like this.

It's crazy.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

2 hours ago, Abdallah said:

a 17 year old who needs to learn more about ruling. Still how many people did Daenerys execute by fire? Not in combat but execution. 

one I believe. Does that make it okay

She's also crucified 163 people which I think is a bit more horrific than burning a couple cannibals and traitors

at least you die within minutes of being burned 

the crucified have to last days like that

[Abdallah]

17 minutes ago, John Doe said:

As you say, Stannis has kingsmen who follow the Seven and the Old Gods, so he has a pretty religiously diverse following. Not the kind you would expect of the religious zealot you want him to be. Your point about the Septon is laughable.

I don't think that being a savage benefits his cause, but to each their own conclusions.

It's crazy.

What that throwing clergy into jail for speaking against you when you desecrate their religion? Kingsmen like Davos were the minority until the influx of northerners who joined out of vengeance against the boltons (who are far worse). The kingsmen would have been alot smaller if Edric was burnt. It was thanks to Davos that Edric escaped and thus Stannis didn't make a mistake that would have cost him hundreds of followers. Stannis had 1500 loyal men after the Battle of the blackwater. How many do u think are Kingsmen? Those who are remained loyal despite his desecrations. Do you think Southerners would accept him if he burnt the sept of Baelor? theres a reason he's not making the northern clansmen burn Weinwoods, and it's not cause he's religiously tolerant. 

Its not that I hate stannis, there are things i like about him and things that i felt screwed him over, u know like Robert sending him to a rock with few bannermen. But the entire burning of people and forced conversion is unacceptable and I'm really finding it hard to see his justifications. 

11 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

one I believe. Does that make it okay

She's also crucified 163 people which I think is a bit more horrific than burning a couple cannibals and traitors

at least you die within minutes of being burned 

the crucified have to last days like that

No it doesn't make it ok but then again 1 vs many burnings?

She did Crucify 163 people which i view as wrong too. Then again the people being executed were being repaid by their own coin, as they crucified 163 kids

[thelittledragonthatcould]

It is pretty simple King Aerys burning people is evil and his whole family deserve to be destroyed for his crime while Stannis burning people is righteous as he is the true King and gets to decide what is right and wrong.

 

Just think, if millions of people in Westeros don't die that is all the justification Stannis fans need that he was right to do so. Sure they probably would not have died anyway, but is it really worth taking that chance?

[Lord_Ravenstone]

33 minutes ago, Abdallah said:

What that throwing clergy into jail for speaking against you when you desecrate their religion? Kingsmen like Davos were the minority until the influx of northerners who joined out of vengeance against the boltons (who are far worse). The kingsmen would have been alot smaller if Edric was burnt. It was thanks to Davos that Edric escaped and thus Stannis didn't make a mistake that would have cost him hundreds of followers. Stannis had 1500 loyal men after the Battle of the blackwater. How many do u think are Kingsmen? Those who are remained loyal despite his desecrations. Do you think Southerners would accept him if he burnt the sept of Baelor? theres a reason he's not making the northern clansmen burn Weinwoods, and it's not cause he's religiously tolerant. 

Its not that I hate stannis, there are things i like about him and things that i felt screwed him over, u know like Robert sending him to a rock with few bannermen. But the entire burning of people and forced conversion is unacceptable and I'm really finding it hard to see his justifications. 

No it doesn't make it ok but then again 1 vs many burnings?

She did Crucify 163 people which i view as wrong too. Then again the people being executed were being repaid by their own coin, as they crucified 163 kids

I would say most of his men are followers of the Faith. The nobles following Stannis not so much.

1 burning and 163 crucifixions versus 7 burnings. 

How do you know some of these people she crucified didn't speak out against crucifying the 163 kids?

She also let them pick amongst themselves who to crucify which seems like the perfect opportunity to weed out those people who showed any dissent or sympathy for Daenerys.

 

[John Doe]

 

10 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

I would say most of his men are followers of the Faith. The nobles following Stannis not so much.

1 burning and 163 crucifixions versus 7 burnings. 

How do you know some of these people she crucified didn't speak out against crucifying the 163 kids?

She also let them pick amongst themselves who to crucify which seems like the perfect opportunity to weed out those people who showed any dissent or sympathy for Daenerys.

 

[Sir Matthis Light]

I dont see how people can say Stannis burning people alive is just?

 

Im pretty sure if he ever takes the Thronethe majority of the people in Westeros including the commons, would rise up in revolt he if decides to continue this practice.

[Abdallah]

26 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

I would say most of his men are followers of the Faith. The nobles following Stannis not so much.

1 burning and 163 crucifixions versus 7 burnings. 

How do you know some of these people she crucified didn't speak out against crucifying the 163 kids?

She also let them pick amongst themselves who to crucify which seems like the perfect opportunity to weed out those people who showed any dissent or sympathy for Daenerys.

 

so most of the Kingsmen are guys with no choice but to follow their lords. 

Again i am against the crucifying and i'm not too pleased with Daenerys either. But i'd give her a pass on this one time seeing as I'd be mad too if i saw 163 kids crucified. 

It was more than 7, 4 cannibals, Alester, Fake Mance, Sunglass and a few rumbltions but its a growing number 

[chrisdaw]

Burnings are just a form of execution. It's the who and why that makes all the difference.

The realm did not rise against Aerys because he burned people. Ned and Robert rose against him because he demanded their heads, their bannerman and Jon Arryn supported them because they held faith with them and believed Aerys' demand was unjust.

The realm does not deny Stannis because he burns people, indeed where religion is a deal breaker away from land he directly reigns over he leaves Mel at home.

[7-KG]

19 hours ago, Abdallah said:

So Stannis supporters tell me the man is the One true king of Westeros. Why is he the rightful king, cause his undeserving brother was king before him. Why was his undeserving brother king? cause he killed the Mad King, who was burning people? Oh like how stannis burnt Alester Florent? or like he burnt Lord of Bones? or like his (trying very hard not to curse her out) charlatan witch Melissandra burnt Sunglass and some other? Whats the difference between him burning people and Aerys burning people? 

Did a Stannis fan ruined something great in your life recently?

Stannis's the rightful king because Robert overthrew a lunatical prick who enjoyed burning people, becoming king himself, and Stannis is his rightful heir since Robert had no legitimate children. Simple as that. And yes, there is a difference between Aerys and Stannis. People are already pointing them out and arguing, so there's not much I can do.

[7-KG]

4 hours ago, Grissom said:

There was a thread the other day comparing Stannis to Viserys. Now this. Stannis haters are getting more imaginative. I like this.

And people claim Stannis fans are irrational and crazies. It's disgusting.

[7-KG]

1 hour ago, Sir Matthis Light said:

I dont see how people can say Stannis burning people alive is just?

 

Im pretty sure if he ever takes the Thronethe majority of the people in Westeros including the commons, would rise up in revolt he if decides to continue this practice.

Westeros recently had a war, the continent is ruined; why would they do such stupidity as starting another war because a man burns people for treason?

[Sir Matthis Light]

48 minutes ago, 7-KG said:

Westeros recently had a war, the continent is ruined; why would they do such stupidity as starting another war because a man burns people for treason?

So your saying people would be OK with having another King who burns people alive? and this time for a God who is very queer to the rest of Westeroes?

Maybe be the lowborns wouldn't as much care, but the Highborn, and High septon would. The book describes Stannis as a Just but firm man, he constantly goes by the law and see traitors everywhere. He would have punish some of the Stormlords for their treason of siding with Renly, and Highgarden also. This would have cause another war.

I like Stannis, but it just boggles my mind on how people can justify him burning people vs Aerys II. Its wrong, Period

[Abdallah]

58 minutes ago, 7-KG said:

Did a Stannis fan ruined something great in your life recently?

Stannis's the rightful king because Robert overthrew a lunatical prick who enjoyed burning people, becoming king himself, and Stannis is his rightful heir since Robert had no legitimate children. Simple as that. And yes, there is a difference between Aerys and Stannis. People are already pointing them out and arguing, so there's not much I can do.

I'm reading a Dance with Dragons. I just read about the forced conversions and the burning of another person. 

Yes by the laws of inheritance Stannis is Robert's heir. The reason Daenerys isn't queen is because Robert was stronger than the Targs. Thats the might makes right. well then I guess Tommen is the rightful king because his family's might made it so. 

So Aerys is a lunatic prick because he enjoys burning people. It's too bad he didn't do what stannis does and say it's in the name of Rhollar. Infact Stannis burnt more people than Aerys. He burnt atleast 9 people, Fake mance, Alester, 4 cannibals, 2 Rambtons and Lord Sunglass. Aerys only burnt Rickard Stark, his Hand and lady Darklyn of Duskendale. 

The thing your missing is that Melissandra is full of shit and is either using dark magic, which is bad, or is a complete Charlatan. I'm gonna go with the latter. Aerys was wrong cause of his paranoid yet believing setting a boy like Edric Storm on fire to make a statue into a dragon doesn't sound insane to u? 

1 hour ago, 7-KG said:

Westeros recently had a war, the continent is ruined; why would they do such stupidity as starting another war because a man burns people for treason?

Aerys burnt people for treason. Thats the whole reason why stannis is king right? But i'm sure he won't go insane will he? Well since he burnt the sept of Dragonstone he might just burnt the sept of baelor. I don't know burning holy places and imprison septons who will speak against it might turn a population full of followers of the 7 against him. Then again seeing as most of the lords of Westeros don't like him either i guess the smallfolk and the lords will be on the same page. This is the same jerk who threatened Robb Stark after Robb's dad died for him. Perhaps if he wasn't an entitled ass he might of shown Catelyn some sympathies, like a normal human would, and maybe even convinced Robb to come back to the realm and join him. 

[Abdallah]

23 minutes ago, Sir Matthis Light said:

So your saying people would be OK with having another King who burns people alive? and this time for a God who is very queer to the rest of Westeroes?

Maybe be the lowborns wouldn't as much care, but the Highborn, and High septon would. The book describes Stannis as a Just but firm man, he constantly goes by the law and see traitors everywhere. He would have punish some of the Stormlords for their treason of siding with Renly, and Highgarden also. This would have cause another war.

I like Stannis, but it just boggles my mind on how people can justify him burning people vs Aerys II. Its wrong, Period

It's literally Aerys 2.0 It's hilarious that Stannis supporters keep claiming Dany might be another Aerys, though she might be, when their king turned into Aerys. He would of never stopped burning. The only reason he hasn't become Aerys is because of Davos. And it's amazing that Stannis actions never came back to bite him in the ass. the man is just lucky. Imagine if the North knew what he did to Stormend's Godswood, or that he forced converted the wildlings. Davos in White Harbor was lucky they didn't know about the Sept incident. even berfore that, imagine if Godric Borrell decided to get revenge on Stannis for killing his 12 friends by sending Davos to KL. The man could have made a forune but instead decided to keep his little island neutral. Imagine if the northerners knew how he threatened Robb and cursed him using blood magic. To be king you do need to know how to have relations with your lords, and he clearly doesn't. 

[Abdallah]

“Kings have no friends,” Stannis said bluntly, “only subjects and enemies.”

Thats your self entitled king, talking to Catelyn in chapter 3 ACOK. Thinking that all the lords should bow to him cause he was Robert's heir. Heres the truth of it. The Iron Throne was built of swords because only the strong can be king. Basing your claim on law does nothing, as laws can be changed. No one  in Westeros likes him and he failed to win their support. Maybe if he focused on sympathies and kindness to Catelyn, instead of bitching about how he should have been the king's hand. 

[The Dragon Knight]

36 minutes ago, Abdallah said:

“Kings have no friends,” Stannis said bluntly, “only subjects and enemies.”

Thats your self entitled king, talking to Catelyn in chapter 3 ACOK. Thinking that all the lords should bow to him cause he was Robert's heir. Heres the truth of it. The Iron Throne was built of swords because only the strong can be king. Basing your claim on law does nothing, as laws can be changed. No one  in Westeros likes him and he failed to win their support. Maybe if he focused on sympathies and kindness to Catelyn, instead of bitching about how he should have been the king's hand. 

 

The whole point of Stannis is that he makes his decisions based solely on the law. He isn't motivated by what he wants to do, but by what he has to do, as stated by the law. That's what being a lord means to Stannis, that it is his duty to uphold the law in order to protect his people. I'm not even convinced that he wants to be the king. In fact, I think there's a lot to suggest that he doesn't. But he was Robert's heir, Robert died without any trueborn sons, so now the law says he is the lord of the 7 kingdoms. So he goes about trying to uphold the law and protect his people; first by trying to get Joffrey off the throne (there's no way that anyone could claim Joffrey being on the throne would be good for the realm), then by saving the North from an invasion of Wildlings, and now by trying to remove the Bolton's as rulers of the North (which, again, could anyone possibly think the Boltons ruling would be good for the North?).

And that's what makes him different from Aerys. Aerys had no regard for the law whatsoever, and just condemned people to executions based upon his insane, paranoid whims. Stannis condemns people to be executed based upon them committing a capital offense. 

 

[khal drogon]

7 hours ago, John Doe said:

2. He respects ??the religion o his sbuects. The Wildlings were no subjects of his. To ensure their loyalty, they had to break symbolically with their traditions to show they were accepting his rule. Do you think they would be loyal subjects otherwise? The Wildlings who weren't able to get passed the Wall chose to stay north of it, Stannis offered every one the same deal. 

What he respect the religion of his subjects? By burning the Septs and Godswoods? This is getting funny. From the moment he was introduced he has been burning religious places of other religions. To accept his loyalty and safe refuge they have to break thousands year old tradition? Do you even realise how that sounds? 

Interestingly, the letting in of Wildlings contrasts two leaders present at the wall. While one takes hostages to ensure loyalty, the other one asks to give up their faith or return to their deaths. 

[GallowsKnight]

I promised I wouldn't touch this topic. Been on these forums a while the problem is it's often the same arguments being played out without much change. Oh well.

Firstly I detest the idea of burning someone alive. I don't think you will find Stannis fans who are actually pro-burning people alive. But then again I'm also disgusted by the idea of crow cages, crucifixion and public beheading. This doesn't mean I'm completely against the death penalty, I think it is appropriate but only if there is 0% chance of executing an innocent person. Something which I don't think any justice system on Earth yet could ever achieve. So pragmatically I guess I'm anti-death penalty for now.

As follows I guess I'll break it down it sections about Aerys, Stannis and Daenarys (because really that's what this debate boils down to in the end).

Aerys

Aerys was aroused by buring people. We know this. Daenarys was conceived as the result of one of these burnings. Consequentialist philosophy argues it's not just a person's actions that determine morality but their intentions in the behaviour. Even if the burnings were legitimate in some grotesque way, getting aroused by them isn't. We'd be pretty disturbed if a Judge in a country got erections off sentencing people to die, even if the casework was tight. This is one part in which Stannis is different. He has no clear sick joy that we see from burning.

Furthermore he burnt Rickard and Brandon in lieu of an actual trial by combat. The feudal system is a two way street. The King gets most of the benefits but he still has obligations to his feudal vassals. This is evident when Brienne swears her oath to Catelyn. So these burning were essentially illegal (as much as something the King does can be) and gave valid "Casus Belli" to the Rebels. Robert wasn't an undeserving usurper his feudal obligations were voided, he overthrew the Targaryans and bound the other lords to his house.

So there is the second part, Aery's burning broke Westerosi feudal customs. I explore Stannis burnings next.

Stannis

Stannis burns as follows: Alester Florent. Rattleshirt. Four Cannibals. Selyse acting with his authority but not under his orders burns Lord Sunglass and the surviving Rambertons. Stannis does not burn Edric Storm. Those he directly burns all have committed crimes. There is I feel moral culpability for the ones Selyse does.

Alester Florent betrayed Stannis. Tried to sell Stannis' crown and daughters so he could preserve their house. A clear traitor.

Rattleshirt burnt instead of Mance was an invading raider. One who had raided the Seven Kingdoms before. Now we have articles such as the Geneva Conventions which details the rights of prisonders. The Seven Kingdoms and Medieval Europe had none. The English king ordered the mass execution of French soldiers after Agincourt. This was not seen as reprehensible at the time by the English. Executing a foreign invader would be legally sound in the Seven Kingdoms.

The Four Cannibals. Firstly Stannis never ate human flesh at Storm's End. He considered it and rejected. That is not the same as doing it. In certain situations Commanders and Kings can choose how a crime is punished, whether it is pardoned or punished mildy/moderately/severely. This comes down to the context. In Storm's End Stannis would have likely forgiven some cannibalism. Things were grim and they were all on the same determined side to hold the siege. In the snows outside Winterfall Stannis' army is made up of multiple factions, many are already dying in the cold overnight, allowing cannibalism is going to shatter moral. You run the risk of people at best not helping people so they die and worst outright killing each other to eat them. Stannis chose a harsh punishment so he could stamp down on the act.

Selyse

Selyse burns Sunglasse and Ramberton's sons without any clear order from Stannis. But this action as his queen is within her power. Technically these men are traitors. Sunglass for refusing to fight for Stannis, the Rambertons for slaying his men in defense of the Sept. In reality given the obvious inflammatory nature of radical faith, leniency would be the best option.

I think Stannis should have reprimanded/punished Selyse for the actions. But I can understand why he didn't. A lot of the men who fled with him are Florents and attacking his wife would only cause him to look weaker. I don't forgive him but I understand.

Edric

Stannis never burnt him. So maybe conspiracy to murder or at worst attempted murder by modern standards. But the motivations that drove Stannis were certainly not evil. He thought the world hung in its very balance on Edric's life. While that's not an excuse, it does show the pressure Stannis was under.

Stannis Conclusion

Stannis doesn't get pleasure from burning people

He uses it as a form of execution for confirmed criminals

He never burnt Edric but has some culpability for the actions of his wife

Daenarys addition for fun

Daenarys allows a young child to be burnt and then eaten alive by a dragon. Where Stannis weighed the world against a child's life and ultimately was spared from that by Davos, Daenarys manages to kill a child through sheer negligence. 

Daenarys burnt that guy at Astapor. I don't mind this much because seriously Slavers are complete scum. She did kind of break whatever the Essosi equivalent of guest right is though. That was a bit uncool.

She ordered the crucifixation of 163 slavers. Now again Slavers are scum. But eye for an eye isn't true justice. It lowers you to the level of those you are punishing. Even if only 163 slavers were responsible and she got the right guys I'd object to it. They should have gotten a beheading or something quick. Justice you kill kids you die, but not revenge.

But what are the odds that she actually punished the right people. She asked the Pyramids to supply the victims. What a great way to kill your useless cousin or progressive uncle. Then there is the number. Either more than 163 people were involved and she essentially let guilty people go. Or less were involved and even if she got the right people. People innocent of the crucifixion of children were killed.

You put Eddard Stark or Stannis Baratheon or heck maybe even Randyl "Wash a prostitute's genitalia with abrasive alkaline solution" Tarly might have done the correct thing. Round up those you can ascertain are actually guilting. Execute them. If it's 40, stop at forty, if it's 400, don't stop at 163.

[Sir Matthis Light]

1 hour ago, Abdallah said:

It's literally Aerys 2.0 It's hilarious that Stannis supporters keep claiming Dany might be another Aerys, though she might be, when their king turned into Aerys. He would of never stopped burning. The only reason he hasn't become Aerys is because of Davos. And it's amazing that Stannis actions never came back to bite him in the ass. the man is just lucky. Imagine if the North knew what he did to Stormend's Godswood, or that he forced converted the wildlings. Davos in White Harbor was lucky they didn't know about the Sept incident. even berfore that, imagine if Godric Borrell decided to get revenge on Stannis for killing his 12 friends by sending Davos to KL. The man could have made a forune but instead decided to keep his little island neutral. Imagine if the northerners knew how he threatened Robb and cursed him using blood magic. To be king you do need to know how to have relations with your lords, and he clearly doesn't. 

Exactly! To say Stannis is different then Aerys II is ridiculous to me. Sure he doesn't burn people ali.. Oh wait, yes he does. At least he doesn't use black magi.. Oh wait, yes he does. Well, at least you can't call him a Kinsla..Oh wait, HE DID THAT TOO!!!

Like I said, I like Stannis, but hes not the RIGHT ruler for The Seven Kingdoms.

Varys puts it best Starting at 0:15