Stannis burning people vs Arys burning people

[The Drunkard]

9 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.

Did you know that both Stannis and Hitler have facial hair?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

2 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

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.

QFT

[John Doe]

4 hours ago, khal drogon said:

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. 

 

3 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

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.

Thank you for this reasonable post. 

3 hours ago, Sir Matthis Light said:

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

 

 

The TV series did butcher his character anyways. 

4 hours ago, The Dragon Knight said:

 

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. 

 

5 hours 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. 

Eh yes, every king does that. Dany says the lords should bow to her because she was Aerys' daughter. See the flaw in your argument? Every king claims the throne based on law. Or do you say he should fight for it? Well, he does that. Or that he fails to win sympathies? What is he doing in the North right now, or with the Iron Bank? Did you not notice how he was the one who promised Catelyn her kids would be returned to her if Stannis took the city, before he even asked her for her loyalty? You really need to re-read the passages with Stannis in them.

5 hours 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.

6 hours 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.

He doesn't see traitors everywhere (or care to prove he sees traitors where there are none?) and yes, the smallfolk likes him actually and would profit the most from his reign.

7 hours 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.

7 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

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

 

Agreed. That's like saying "Eddard Stark and Aerys are the same, both executed people."

8 hours ago, Abdallah said:

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 

lol So you say "this Stannis guy is like Aerys, he burnt proven traitors and cannibals alive. But with Dany it's okay that she burnt innocent people and slaughtered a whole city, because she was a teenage girl and she was mad." It never ceases to amaze me how emotional Dany fans are in discussions.

[khal drogon]

If Stannis burns anyone it is not bad, never bad. It is just a form of punishment, except it is not practiced as a form of execution anywhere in Planetos. Even if he tries to burn an innocent kid, it is okay because that would save the world. He also gets credit for Davos' work because he didn't burn Edric. 

Crucifying slavers who toss people into fighting pits to fight animals, crucifying slave children - No. They don't deserve death.

Alester Florent - Burn him. He betrayed the one true King. 

Those Cannibals deserve burnings because Stannis never ate human flesh. They could starve to death or burn to death. Poor them.

He didn't get aroused by burning so is totally cool.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

snip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NIZOvfKpc QFT 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

7 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Even if he tries to burn an innocent kid,

Which he doesn't in the books.

7 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Crucifying slavers who toss people into fighting pits to fight animals, crucifying slave children - No. They don't deserve death.

Utter  No one have said that.

[khal drogon]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Which he doesn't in the books.

Utter  No one have said that.

Yeah but his fans gives him credit for it. Because Davos didn't smuggle out Edric. 

It is sarcastic though arguments come close. Like slavers are innocent and they deserve soft beheadings.

[khal drogon]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Which he doesn't in the books.

Utter  No one have said that.

Yeah but his fans gives him credit for it. Because Davos didn't smuggle out Edric. 

It is sarcastic though arguments come close. Like slavers are innocent and they deserve soft beheadings.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Yeah but his fans gives him credit for it. Because Davos didn't smuggle out Edric.

If he wanted Edric dead he would had been dead and Davos wouldn't had the time to smuggle him away.

4 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

It is sarcastic though arguments come close. Like slavers are innocent and they deserve soft beheadings.

No it's silly. No one said that the slaves who crucified the children were innocent. What people say is that was what Dany did was mass murder without actually trying to learn who was the criminal and who wasn't.

[John Doe]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If he wanted Edric dead he would had been dead and Davos wouldn't had the time to smuggle him away.

No it's silly. No one said that the slaves who crucified the children were innocent. What people say is that was what Dany did was mass murder without actually trying to learn who was the criminal and who wasn't.

It's amazing how you even have to explain those things to people who supposedly read all the books. 

[GallowsKnight]

14 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

1. If Stannis burns anyone it is not bad, never bad. It is just a form of punishment, except it is not practiced as a form of execution anywhere in Planetos. 2. Even if he tries to burn an innocent kid, it is okay because that would save the world. He also gets credit for Davos' work because he didn't burn Edric. 

3. Crucifying slavers who toss people into fighting pits to fight animals, crucifying slave children - No. They don't deserve death.

4. Alester Florent - Burn him. He betrayed the one true King. 

5. Those Cannibals deserve burnings because Stannis never ate human flesh. They could starve to death or burn to death. Poor them.

6. He didn't get aroused by burning so is totally cool.

I wish I could transmit a sigh across the internet. I assume this is directed at my post.

1. Ignoring what I said in the post above. You know what is a common form of execution seen in Westero across all Kingdoms and even back in Dunk and Eggs times? Crow Cages. Putting someone in a cage to whither and die of starvation exposed to the elements . No one is saying Stannis is using a traditional method of execution, but as that example shows Westerosi aren't alway kind in their sentences. We are saying those executed had earnt a rope or a headman's axe at the least.

2. Stannis never "tried" to burn Edric he contemplated it. The saving the world part isn't to justify it, it's to explain the pressure he's under. He's not some sneering villain, 1 childs life versus the world is a pretty interesting moral debate.

3. No the guilty parties, of which I'm not convinced those 163 were necessarily, deserve death. A different method of execution too rather than sinking to their level.

4. Do you understand how treason works?

5. Military courts handing out executions for such crimes is not new. Taking burning out of the equation would you be upset if he hanged them?

6.  Are you objecting to him not getting aroused at executions? That's one small part of why he is different. It's more of negative about Aerys than a positive for Stannis. Which is the entire point of this thread right.

[khal drogon]

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If he wanted Edric dead he would had been dead and Davos wouldn't had the time to smuggle him away.

If he didn't want Edric dead, Davos would not have felt the need to smuggle him out. And this is the man who said a boy's life does not matter before seven kingdoms.

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No it's silly. No one said that the slaves who crucified the children were innocent. What people say is that was what Dany did was mass murder without actually trying to learn who was the criminal and who wasn't.

  Yeah she did. But it is funny to see Stannis fans talk against crucifixions as a form of punishment when their king burns them.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

If he didn't want Edric dead, Davos would not have felt the need to smuggle him out. And this is the man who said a boy's life does not matter before seven kingdoms.

And if he wanted to do it why he hadn't done it before Davos' return or when he was in prison?

6 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Yeah she did. But it is funny to see Stannis fans talk against crucifixions as a form of punishment when their king burns them.

Prove it. Give me the quote which proves that she had put them in trial and condemned them to death.

It's amazing how you even have to explain those things to people who supposedly read all the books. 

I guess that everyone has his own different editions of the same books which have different storylines? 

[khal drogon]

5 minutes ago, GallowsKnight said:

Iguihicould trasnsmit a diross the t. I assuthisnotthis is directed at mr y post.

1. Ignoring what I said in the post above. You know what tha common form of execution seen in Westero across all Kingdoms and even back in Dunk and Eggs times? Crow Cages. Putting someone in a cage to whither and die of starvation exposed to the elements . No one is saying Stannis is using a traditional method of execution, but as that example shows Westerosi aren't alway kind in their sentences. We are saying those executed had earnt a rope or a headman's axe at the least.

2. Stannis never "tried" to burn Edric he contemplated it. The saving the world part isn't to justify it, it's to explain the pressure he's under. He's not some sneering villain, 1 childs life versus the world is a pretty interesting moral debate.

3. No the guilty parties, of which I'm not convinced those 163 were necessarily, deserve death. A different method of execution too rather than sinking to their level.

4. Do you understand how treason works?

5. Military courts handing out executions for such crimes is not new. Taking burning out of the equation would you be upset if he hanged them?

6.  Are you objecting to him not getting aroused at executions? That's one small part of why he is different. It's more of negative about Aerys than a positive for Stannis. Which is the entire point of this thread right.

1. I agree that Westerosi executions could become more brutal. But for more brutal executions the magnitude of crimes should be more. I am saying the same point you are trying to say but in a different way. I don't think those cannibals and even Alester deserved burnings but I wish those slavers had a more brutal death. It has nothing to do with Stannis or Dany. 

2. He would have "tried" if not for given his opinions about it. Now one thing is not clear. Why would he believe Mel that he has to sacrifice a boy to save the world while in the same chapter he had doubts about the leeches and the fake Lightbringer.

3. Well if they are not guilty of crucifying children they are guilty of other crimes as evident from their human rights records. I see the crucifixion of slavers as a violent retaliation against a slaving society than an attempt to execute guilty people. Yeah retaliation is bad and if she had executed everyone of them for all their crimes I would be happy. But I am not worried about how she did it as all the things I have read about them does not provide a positive picture. 

4. But not deserving of burning IMO.

5. But in this situation, it was Stannis who was making them march without food and they have to do it for survival. They definitely don't deserve burning. I am disturbed by his lack of guilt and the fact that the burning was done for religious purposes. 

6. Because that was given as a defence for his behaviour. While he differs in that from Aerys that does not justify anything. 

[GallowsKnight]

I'm going to focus on these for the moment. Because really on the other points arguing about whether someone deserves burning is something I don't like. I don't think anyone deserves being burnt alive, crucified, crow-caged no matter the crime. It's definitely not a positive about King Stannis. I've outlined where I think he differs from Aerys (legal process, lack of personal satisfaction). 

14 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Why would he believe Mel that he has to sacrifice a boy to save the world while in the same chapter he had doubts about the leeches and the fake Lightbringer.

Wait a minute. Wait a hot minute. 

Why would King Stannis even contemplate burning Edric if he didn't believe Melissandre? For shits and giggles?

This is a "you can't have your cake and eat it scenario".

King Stannis at the end of the day is either a sceptic who wouldn't  have gone through with it or he believed enough that the fate of the world was in his hands. You can't use one to invalidate the other while still saying he'd have killed Edric.

14 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Well if they are not guilty of crucifying children they are guilty of other crimes as evident from their human rights records. I see the crucifixion of slavers as a violent retaliation against a slaving society than an attempt to execute guilty people. Yeah retaliation is bad and if she had executed everyone of them for all their crimes I would be happy. But I am not worried about how she did it as all the things I have read about them does not provide a positive picture. 

I hate slavery. It is the vilest of man's crime in my mind. But you don't fight evil with evil. War criminals are put on trial. You can't just genocide countries for their crimes. On this we disagree.

[7-KG]

11 hours ago, Abdallah said:

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. 

What might? The might of pretending the children are actually Baratheons? No, he isn't the rightful ruler because of that.

11 hours ago, Abdallah said:

The thing you're missing is that Melisandre 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? 

Yes, it doesn't. Because Stannis had a long grudge on either or not to kill the boy and wasn't amused at the perspective he would burn.

11 hours ago, Abdallah said:

Aerys burnt people for treason. Thats the whole reason why stannis is king right? (Wut?) But i'm sure he won't go insane will he? (Yes, he will not). 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. 

Stannis might not simply burn the sept and force people on the red faith, though. He's no idiot, dude. Remember how he didn't simply burnt the weirwood to gain the support of the northmen?

11 hours ago, Abdallah said:

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.

So, you think the lords would start a rebellion... because they don't like him?!

They might of start one depending on his reign, if it's very bad or something like that. Even this is a bit unlikely, seeing as Westeros has already passed a period of crisis and war, so starting another one would be kind of stupid.

[7-KG]

9 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

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.

 

QFT. Good job, dude.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

5 minutes ago, 7-KG said:

So, you think the lords would start a rebellion... because they don't like him?!
 

That is pretty much what Ned was told and he did not disagree with it.

I doubt many would recognize him as King even if he would have taken King's Landing in ASOS.

[the conquering bastard 25]

21 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

How is he religiously fanatic when he doesn't even believe in R'hllor?

That makes it even worse. At least if he was a religious fanatic, be would have the oak of his faith. Now.he's just a monster truck g on any cloak in a storm to win a crown! Aerys had the excuse of being of batshit crazy. What's Stanniss excuse. Sorry ppl but Stannis is a thousand times worse than the Mad King. Even though I don't think Aerys was a crazy as ppl think

[The Dragon Knight]

10 minutes ago, the conquering bastard 25 said:

That makes it even worse. At least if he was a religious fanatic, be would have the oak of his faith. Now.he's just a monster truck g on any cloak in a storm to win a crown! Aerys had the excuse of being of batshit crazy. What's Stanniss excuse. Sorry ppl but Stannis is a thousand times worse than the Mad King. Even though I don't think Aerys was a crazy as ppl think

Stannis is a thousand times worse than the Mad King?? You're kidding right? Aerys killed innocent people for the fun of it. Stannis executed people who committed capital offenses. Stannis upholds the law, Aerys ignored it. How does that make Stannis worse?