It really sucks to be Stannis

[Lord Varys]

@thelittledragonthatcould

As to Stannis being righteous:

There is an SSM in which George implies that he actually finds Stannis' murder of Renly not reprehensible. It is a mixed bag. Assassinating your own brother is bad but actually preventing a battle/war by assassinating the enemy leader is preferable to a battle/war. The same goes with the Penrose murder. Stannis saved a lot of lives on both days.

However, one could always make the point that Stannis could always have bent the knee to Renly to save lives. But I think we can say that he occasionally tries to be as good/just as he can be in the context of the political goals he is pursuing.

[Sullen]

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Meaning he is still an unwitting participant in Renly's death. Being partially responsible occurring to Stannis after the fact and leading to denial (which I agree with) does not mean he was a willing participant.

Meaning he only realized it was the wrong thing to do after actually doing it.

Him not being aware of the plan and still expecting to triumph against Renly would make him the most suicidal character in the series, or a completely blind follower of Melissandre. And I don't think Stannis is either.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

I was only referring to the assault on King's Landing itself. However, I recall Stannis being completely blinded due to Tyrion's clansman... similar to how Robb blinded Jaime with the Blackfish and his men.

He was blinded, and still charged, without expecting a trap.

That for me is rather weak as far as tactical excellence goes.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

It pushed Roose into going full turncoat and it was the catalyst for Robb giving in and then marrying Jeyne. Honestly, Robb's cause never died with the Tyrell/Lannister alliance. In spite of his title, North and its independence was always the primary goal. If not for the Red Wedding, Robb would have returned North. From there on, the Lannisters/Tyrells could do nothing but decimate the Riverlands further, throw men at Moat Cailin, or launch doomed amphibious invasions. Not to mention the fact that Robb could replenish army's numbers. The Lannister/Tyrell alliance was significant, but it did not kill Robb's cause as the fall of Winterfell did.

If Robb even could make it back North, which Balon and Victarion made sure couldn't happen, and which they would have done whether or not Theon had taken Winterfell. The Tyrells joining the Lannisters is what made sure he couldn't win under any circumstance, though Balon did help, and Theon expedited his end. But Robb would have lost even without Theon, he simply wouldn't have been killed at a wedding banquet.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Seriously? Renly was the only person that could have served for its basis? So if Renly bent the knee and fully endorsed his brother all of the Storm lords and Reach lords would have returned home and Robb suddenly becomes deaf to any suggestion of an alliance when it's Stannis in question as oppose to Renly? Really? If anything Robb would have been more willing to bend the knee to Stannis.

I agree that Stannis contributed to the botching of that possible power bloc, but let's not try to hide the responsibility Renly also bears. Christ, we could even shoulder responsibility onto Loras. Both Baratheon brothers were as inflexible as each other and both bear responsibility for botching that possible alliance.

Mace Tyrell categorically opposes Stannis as a King due to their past dealings, would see a King with a Florent entourage as a threat, see Renly backing off on their deal to make Marge queen as a betrayal, and would turn to Joffrey as soon as he could. No one wants Stannis as their King, and many actually fear him gaining any power.

Renly holds no responsibility for botching the power bloc, he had already established one that would have simply kept growing, Stannis is the one who destroyed it without having anything positive to contribute to it.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

"illusive" referred to this Winterfell/Riverrun-Highgarden coalition the original poster referenced. I was poking at the fact he presented a tangible power bloc that Stannis shattered when no such power bloc existed.

Alright, taken.

A tangible power bloc already existed in the form of the Baratheon-Tyrell alliance already existed though.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

I outright stated that abandoning Robert was hypocritical, the wrong choice, and that Stannis failed Robert in doing so, so I am not robbing him of agency in that regard. Again, I dispute that Stannis knowingly killed Renly and only suspected that himself of being partially responsible after the fact. As for entering a war he could not hope to win... yes, from our perspective. From his perspective, divine powers were on his side, thus the situation takes on a different light entirely. Again, we have the luxury of being spectators and often make the mistake of applying the conclusions we drawn from that luxury to other characters. I recall a good post somewhere discussing how Stannis is actually rather restrained with his use of the Red God comparative to the likes of Tywin and Renly.

As for playing around with sacrificing his nephew... you make it sound so black-white and indicative of an evil streak. That debate Stannis and Davos had in A Storm of Swords highlights how complex the issue was. I view Stannis toying with the idea in the same light as abandoning Robert; wrong, but not a decision I can lend sympathy to given the rational. In other words, absolutely not indicative of some dastardly nature.

I think that the excuse that Stannis didn't knowingly kill Renly depends too much on him acting out of character and dismisses too much to be credible. Cressen (the only person to have ever loved Stannis) even accuses him of planning fratricide, and Stannis fails to deny it.

I don't think Stannis was certain he had divine powers on his side, as he claims not to believe in the Gods, any of them. From his PoV, Melisandre's powers are barely tools, and no proof that a greater being backs him.

I mentioned the notion of him toying around with the idea of his nephew as an example of how he lead to the Baratheon downfall, it isn't enough that he kills a brother, leaves another one to die, wages an unwinnable war, but he also needs to consider sacrificing one of the few recognized bastards to advance his position.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

If this was prompted by my comment stating he was unwittingly carrying out a revolution of sorts, I am referring to a interpretation that Stannis is essentially divorcing monarchy from divine power.

As for Sunglass... I thought Stannis had no part in that whatsoever?

Which would have been a good thing if he did it in times of peace, instead he does it at the worst possible time.

Selyse and Axel have Sunglass sacrificed while Stannis is away, but his lack of punishing them shows he supported the act, or at least is too weak to stand up to his wife/Melisandre in that aspect. In either case, it's unjust, if you ask me.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Because as far as Stannis is concerned, he's in a pact with the Red God and has divine support. I would hazard a guess that most people under the impression that they have divine power on their side would view that as something superseding politics.

I don't believe Stannis entirely believes in the Red God. He claims he doesn't, and while I think he's not completely honest when here, I think his cautious and pragmatic nature have the edge on his belief in an entity that would make him its messiah.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Need evidence to sway me to this perspective. My view is that Stannis suspected going to Storm's End would entail the Red God intervening and that he suspected he may be responsible for Renly's death after the fact, but not that he was aware in advance and willingly involved.

Cressen accuses him of it, and he doesn't deny it.

He threatens Renly with death, despite the odds being visibly in Renly's favour, seeming quite sure of himself.

The alternative lies in him facing Renly completely blind as to what will happen, I think he's too cautious for that to be true, it requires him to act too much out of character.

9 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Forgive the lack of a disclaimer clarifying that was from a purely anecdotal perspective.

Of course Stannis is going to crown himself after Renly; he found out about Robert's death after Renly. (1)

So I am wrong for supposedly taking what characters say at face value yet it's fine for you to do the same thing? Renly saying that he expected Stannis to be an ally came across to me as a way to further deflect any blame/scorn he may receive (and rightfully so I must add) for knowingly screwing over his brother in my mind. I struggle to believe Renly raised the banners without some inkling Stannis would react in the way he did. Even Robb-someone oblivious to the incest-clearly sees how wrong Renly declaring is. (2)

They still would have had a good shot at defeating the Lannisters if Renly actually bent the knee. Again, I hold both Baratheons responsible. I think it's a terrible oversimplification to shovel the blame onto one brother almost exclusively. (3)

1. It still makes him crown himself knowing he'll have to go through his brother, while the same doesn't apply to Renly.

2. Except it doesn't fit Renly's character, he's rather unabashed about being called usurper. Renly probably didn't even think of Stannis when he crowned himself, seeing as Stannis had been AWOL for a year and wasn't even the heir in Renly's eyes.

3. They don't have a good shot at defeating the Lannisters if they antagonize the Tyrells, which is what bending the knee to Stannis would have led to.

10 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Yes, I agree that it's justified in Renly's mind.

Yet even when he does find out, he refuses to bend the knee. Renly and Stannis were as inflexible as each other when it came to matter if kingship.

He doesn't "find out" though, he thinks Stannis is using a ridiculous self-serving lie to paint himself as Robert's rightful heir, Stannis having no actual proof of what he's advancing isn't really convincing after all.

10 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Nor am I whitewashing the character. I can sympathize with the logic behind Stannis's decisions but I have held his feet to the fire over abandoning Robert, dabbling in black magic, and shattering the possible alliance (the only difference with that last one is that I also hold Renly's feet to the fire).

Renly did plenty of wrong, starving an entire city who he claims to love/ (and claims to love him back) for one, being a general asshole and all-around bully for another, but nothing in the way he acted with Stannis or the Lannisters was wrong, that's entirely on Stannis failing to inform Renly of his suspicions while Robert was still alive.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

10 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

Good, moral, justified, etc, are all synonyms for righteous. Indignant is not. (fyi, "righteous indignation" is an example of how righteous can be used in a phrase; it's not something with the same meaning)

It's clear what GRRM meant: Stannis understands that the real issue lies north of the Wall, and for that he is a righteous man rather than just another variation of some controversial historic figure.

As I have previously said, and you continue to ignore. Stannis being righteous in his beliefs is not the same as his actions being good or moral. They quite clearly are not.

caused by something that you believe is not morally right or fair

GRRM is not saying Stannis is a good or moral person (or the opposite) he is saying that he believes he is right. Even the righteous are wrong and capable of doing evil deeds.

6 hours ago, John Doe said:

Are you kidding? I provided proof that Penrose had more supplies than Stannis had, I provided proof that this was known in Renly's camp (you know, the place where most of Stannis lords were too, who would definitely have told him) and nothing Stannis said contradicts that. You're talking nonsense.

lol calm down dear.

Are you sure you provided these quotes to me in this dialogue? I don't recall them, provide them again as so far I have Stannis and the author being quite clear that others could have done the same as Stannis.

I am sorry if some of the Stannis fanbase takes such offense at this, but other commanders could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Get over it.

[John Doe]

On 28.4.2016 at 1:01 AM, John Doe said:

Check your facts before accusing people of "making someone some special snowflake". 

And in case you're reaching for the argument that perhaps Penrose wasn't well provisioned either, here is another quote you should consider. 

Sure, you can speculate without evidence if that's what you're into. 

 

57 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

lol calm down dear.

Are you sure you provided these quotes to me in this dialogue? I don't recall them, provide them again as so far I have Stannis and the author being quite clear that others could have done the same as Stannis.

I am sorry if some of the Stannis fanbase takes such offense at this, but other commanders could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Get over it.

You're the one being angry at some Stannis fanbase all the time, not me. 

The quote above yours has the two quotes in question. 

Quote

 If the garrison's supplies had been sufficient to the task, the castle might have held out indefinitely, but the war had come quickly and the storehouses and granaries were only half-full.

This is from the world book. 

Quote

The castle is strongly garrisoned and well provisioned, Ser Cortnay Penrose is a seasoned commander, and the trebuchet has not been built that could breach the walls of Storm's End.

This is from acok. 

So there is a clear difference, Stannis didn't have full storehouses, while the castle was well provisioned when Penrose held it. Penrose holding out for a year is not the same as Stannis holding out for a year.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

15 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 

snip

And this is from Stannis

Estermont will favor settling down to starve them out, as Tyrell and Redwyne once tried with me. That might take a year, but old mules are patient.

And Penrose has no Davos to help him out either.

Though I am not sure why you are so upset with what I have said. I am just agreeing with Stannis and GRRM that others were capable of doing what Stannis did. Why is that such an issue for you?

[John Doe]

4 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

And this is from Stannis

Estermont will favor settling down to starve them out, as Tyrell and Redwyne once tried with me. That might take a year, but old mules are patient.

And Penrose has no Davos to help him out either.

Though I am not sure why you are so upset with what I have said. I am just agreeing with Stannis and GRRM that others were capable of doing what Stannis did. Why is that such an issue for you?

Nice try mate, you were complaining well before I was. 

So you think Davos delivering some onions shortly before the end of the siege is the same as having full granaries from the start?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Nice try mate, you were complaining well before I was. 

lol was I? Care to point them out?

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

So you think Davos delivering some onions shortly before the end of the siege is the same as having full granaries from the start?

I'm only going with what Stannis and the author have said.

Others could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Do you disagree with this?

[John Doe]

7 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

lol was I? Care to point them out?

I'm only going with what Stannis and the author have said.

Others could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Do you disagree with this?

Like when you said Stannis fans always like to make him a special snowflake... sounds a little upset to me. 

But regardless, what exactly is the quote by GRRM? The one by Stannis doesn't contradict my point at all, so I'm curious if at least your other quote does. 

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Like when you said Stannis fans always like to make him a special snowflake... sounds a little upset to me. 

lol you took that as complaining?

Nope, it is my response to the Stannis fans (not all of them) who think that he, and only he, was capable of holding out during Robert's Rebellion.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

But regardless, what exactly is the quote by GRRM?

Storm's End is a hugely formidable castle, and should have been able to hold out much longer, as it did during Robert's Rebellion when Stannis was inside rather than outside.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 

The one by Stannis doesn't contradict my point at all, so I'm curious if at least your other quote does. 

Yes the Stannis one does. He says that Courtney should last a year, that Storm's End is more than capable of lasting a year.

In fact it should last longer. If the Dreadfort is capable of two years then a castle like Storm's End should be able to match it.

And you seem to have ignored my question so I will ask it again.

Others could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Do you disagree with this?

[John Doe]

14 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Yes the Stannis one does. He says that Courtney should last a year, that Storm's End is more than capable of lasting a year.

In fact it should last longer. If the Dreadfort is capable of two years then a castle like Storm's End should be able to match it.

And you seem to have ignored my question so I will ask it again.

Others could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Do you disagree with this?

No the Stannis one doesn't. He says it might last for a year, which isn't surprising considering it has nearly twice the supplies Stannis had. The one by Martin doesn't change the fact that Stannis lasted for a year despite of the castle not being fully supplied either.

Yes, others could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End. Others could have done what Robb/Blackfish did at Whispering Wood or what Tywin did during his twenty years as hand too, that doesn't make it less impressive. And in the books pretty much everyone consideres the siege of Storm's End an impressive showing of Stannis' durability. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

No the Stannis one doesn't. He says it might last for a year, which isn't surprising considering it has nearly twice the supplies Stannis had.

You are going to have to back this up with evidence from the books or GRRM as this sounds suspiciously like bullshit.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 

 The one by Martin doesn't change the fact that Stannis lasted for a year despite of the castle not being fully supplied either.

And? Who was trying to change that fact? Name a single post in this thread that has challenged that?

GRRM and Stannis are both clear on the subject. Others could have done what Stannis did.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Yes, others could have done what Stannis did at Storm's End.

Well done. You finally admitted it after a few attempts.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 

Others could also have done what Robb/Blackfish did at Whispering Wood or what Tywin did during his reign as hand or what Robert did when he won three battles in a day.

All true. Who has said otherwise? And should you not be whining to them instead of me?

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Doesn't make it less impressive. And in the books pretty much everyone consideres the siege of Storm's End an impressive showing of Stannis' durability. 

They consider he proved himself, not that he did something that others could not do.

And my original point still stands, Robert might not have seen it as impressive as the Stannis fans in this thread seem to think it is.

[John Doe]

8 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

You are going to have to back this up with evidence from the books or GRRM as this sounds suspiciously like bullshit.

GRRM and Stannis are both clear on the subject. Others could have done what Stannis did.

Well done. You finally admitted it after a few attempts.

All true. Who has said otherwise? And should you not be whining to them instead of me?

They consider he proved himself, not that he did something that others could not do.

And my original point still stands, Robert might not have seen it as impressive as the Stannis fans in this thread seem to think it is.

His storehouses and supplies were only half full. The rest is simple math. It's unlikely Davos brought enough to feed a few hundred men for a year with his small ship. 

Neither Stannis nor Martin say that in the quotes you provided. 

I didn't challenge it either. 

You really are upset, aren't you? I'm not whining, just pointing out that saying "there are others who could do the same" isn't really a useful statement as that applies to pretty much everything. 

Robert might not, that doesn't change the fact it was. Eddard certainly thinks it was impressive. But he was a Stannis fan too, wasn't he?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

15 minutes ago, John Doe said:

His storehouses and supplies were only half full. The rest is simple math. It's unlikely Davos brought enough to feed a few hundred men for a year with his small ship. 

Where is is stated that Storm's End stores were full? Or that Stannis was aware of how much food was in said stores?

Quote

Neither Stannis nor Martin say that in the quotes you provided. 

They both are very clear. Storm's End with Courtnay should have held out for at least a year, like Stannis did.

The World book is also clear "If the garrisons supplies had been sufficient to the task, the castle might have held out indefinitely"

Stannis lasted as long as the food lasted, thanks in part to Davos, other commanders (not all) would have done the same in his positon.

 

Quote

I didn't challenge it either. 

So why bring it up?

Quote

You really are upset, aren't you? I'm not whining, just pointing out that saying "there are others who could do the same" isn't really a useful statement as that applies to pretty much everything.

lol why do you think I'm upset? What language have I used to give you that impression?

Quote

Robert might not, that doesn't change the fact it was.

lol grasping a little, are we not?

Quote

 

Eddard certainly thinks it was impressive. But he was a Stannis fan too, wasn't he?

Impressive? That is a little hyperbolic.

"Stannis proved himself at the siege of Storm's End, surely."

Robert was impressive in that war, Stannis had merely proved himself.

[John Doe]

21 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Where is is stated that Storm's End stores were full? Or that Stannis was aware of how much food was in said stores?

They both are very clear. Storm's End with Courtnay should have held out for at least a year, like Stannis did.

The World book is also clear "If the garrisons supplies had been sufficient to the task, the castle might have held out indefinitely"

Stannis lasted as long as the food lasted, thanks in part to Davos, other commanders (not all) would have done the same in his positon.

 

So why bring it up?

lol why do you think I'm upset? What language have I used to give you that impression?

lol grasping a little, are we not?

Impressive? That is a little hyperbolic.

"Stannis proved himself at the siege of Storm's End, surely."

Robert was impressive in that war, Stannis had merely proved himself.

Again, in ACOK.

Quote

The castle is strongly garrisoned and well provisioned, Ser Cortnay Penrose is a seasoned commander, and the trebuchet has not been built that could breach the walls of Storm's End.

If it wasn't fully supplied, why highlight that it's "well supplied". This was appearently not a secret at Renly's camp. Stannis had many lords with him who were with Renly before, plus it wouldn't make sense for him to just assume Storm's End was lacking supplies when that was clearly not the norm during war time. 

With Courtnay, it was "well supplied". With Stannis, it's "storehouses and granaries were only half full".So the circumstances are different.  

Yes, some might have done the same. But as I said, that can be said of most achievements.

Because you asked.

"Whining" seemed a bit strong of a word, But of course I might have misunderstood your intentions, in which case I apologize.

I don't think so as the vast majority, if not all the characters who talked about it thought of it as impressive, while I don't remember the contrary.

I was referring to that quote: 

Quote

Ned found it hard to imagine what could frighten Stannis Baratheon, who had once held Storm's End through a year of siege, surviving on rats and boot leather while the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne sat outside with their hosts, banqueting in sight of his walls.

Literally saying "I find it hard to imagine what could frighten this person because of this action he did in the past" does count as impressed, doesn't it?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

6 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Again, in ACOK.

lol again!? You say that like there is a quote saying that it was fully provisioned. There is not.

Quote

If it wasn't fully supplied, why highlight that it's "well supplied".

Is that all you read? Rowan is trying to convince Renly to ignore Stannis (and his pitiful 5k army) and march on Kings Landing.

Renly and his near 100k army is not going to take a year to take Kings Landing. Penrose is well supplied for his needs. That is not the same as saying he is fully supplied (we have not been told one way or  the other if he is) but that he is well supplied.

 

Quote

I agree, some might have done the same. But as I said, that can be said of most achievements.

So we are in agreement.

Quote

 

"Whining" seemed a bit strong of a word, But of course I might have misunderstood your intentions, in which I case I apologize.

No need to apologize. We are both adults and I doubt either of us would be responding if we did not enjoy it on some level.

Quote

I don't think so as the vast majority, if not all the characters who talked about it thought of it as impressive, while I don't remember the contrary.

I'm not sure impressive is the right word. Stannis beating the Ironborn was impressive, Robert winning on the Trident was impressive and Robb beating Jaime at Riverrun was impressive. Stannis at Storm's End was not, though before that he was an untested teenager and afterwards he had proved himself.

Quote

I was referring to that quote: 

 Literally saying "I find it hard to imagine what could frighten this person because of this action he did in the past" does count as impressed, doesn't it?

Well Ned is playing detective (looking for something, anything to pin on the Lannisters) and is curious about Stannis' involvement in Jon Arryns death.

The matter nagged at him. Why did Stannis leave? Had he played some part in Jon Arryn's murder? Or was he afraid? Ned found it hard to imagine what could frighten Stannis Baratheon, who had once held Storm's End through a year of siege, surviving on rats and boot leather while the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne sat outside with their hosts, banqueting in sight of his walls.

And he's right, Stannis had earnt a reputation of not being easily scared so if Stannis has been scared away it must have been a genuine threat. But it is not really a comment on how impressive holding Storm's End was.

[John Doe]

22 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

lol again!? You say that like there is a quote saying that it was fully provisioned. There is not.

Is that all you read? Rowan is trying to convince Renly to ignore Stannis (and his pitiful 5k army) and march on Kings Landing.

Renly and his near 100k army is not going to take a year to take Kings Landing. Penrose is well supplied for his needs. That is not the same as saying he is fully supplied (we have not been told one way or  the other if he is) but that he is well supplied.

 

So we are in agreement.

No need to apologize. We are both adults and I doubt either of us would be responding if we did not enjoy it on some level.

I'm not sure impressive is the right word. Stannis beating the Ironborn was impressive, Robert winning on the Trident was impressive and Robb beating Jaime at Riverrun was impressive. Stannis at Storm's End was not, though before that he was an untested teenager and afterwards he had proved himself.

Well Ned is playing detective (looking for something, anything to pin on the Lannisters) and is curious about Stannis' involvement in Jon Arryns death.

The matter nagged at him. Why did Stannis leave? Had he played some part in Jon Arryn's murder? Or was he afraid? Ned found it hard to imagine what could frighten Stannis Baratheon, who had once held Storm's End through a year of siege, surviving on rats and boot leather while the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne sat outside with their hosts, banqueting in sight of his walls.

And he's right, Stannis had earnt a reputation of not being easily scared so if Stannis has been scared away it must have been a genuine threat. But it is not really a comment on how impressive holding Storm's End was.

Rowan would have been called out if he had just lied about the provisions. Renly was the lord of the castle, he surely would have know if he was lying, yet 

Quote

And have men say I feared to face Stannis?

is his only response.

"Well provisioned" pretty much implies that the storehouses were considerably more than half full. 

Most other commanders would probably have given up earlier, that's why I think the fact that Eddard recalls it as an example of fearlessnes nearly 20 years later shows that it's considered impressive, even if not from a purely tactical standpoint ( we lack details in that regard).

Quote

"Yields?" Lord Rowan laughed. "When Mace Tyrell laid siege to Storm's End, Stannis ate rats rather than open his gates."

 

 

[The Drunkard]

9 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

As I have previously said, and you continue to ignore. Stannis being righteous in his beliefs is not the same as his actions being good or moral. They quite clearly are not.

caused by something that you believe is not morally right or fair

GRRM is not saying Stannis is a good or moral person (or the opposite) he is saying that he believes he is right. Even the righteous are wrong and capable of doing evil deeds.

Again, GRRM is not saying he believes himself righteous, or that he's righteously indignant, he's saying "[Stannis] is a righteous man" because he knows about the Others and responds accordingly. The definitions that you want him to mean simply do not make sense in the context of his statement. Putting the Others ahead of the throne is not an issue of fairness, indignation, belief or w/e else will appear in the next post. It's understanding that the "real issue" is more important than the civil wars, and because of that Stannis is elevated above similar historic figures.

[Red Helm]

On 4/30/2016 at 0:36 PM, Humble Maester said:

We only have so many sources on some of these matters, and we do have a SSM in which Martin states quite clearly that giving his brothers those titles was an act of [paraphrasing] "careless generosity". If we have no other sources on Robert's motivations, as we are not there when Robert makes the decision, we need to rely on secondary sources.

We know that in-books Cersei seems to think it was a snub and that Stannis was extremely bitter about it. But we also know that Cersei is a bit of an idiot, and Stannis may be bitter at matters that were not meant as an insult. That's just how Stannis is. And then we know that the author himself, when asked, told us that the motivation was generosity.

Plausible. The reference to secondary source hesitance stems from a thread I read stating that The World of Ice and Fire said Stannis was an atheist—something I find utterly inconsistent with the books.

Edit: another thing is George R. R. Martin stating that Balon rose under the impression Robert would have next to no support. I know Balon is a fool and that I have yapped on about spectator luxury, but I find that very difficult to believe. Even if we disregard all the old Targaryen loyalists (the Reach, Dorne, and the loyalists in the Stormlands, Vale, Crownlands, and Riverlands) Robert still has the lion's share of the Riverlands, Stormlands, Crownlands, and Vale as well as the entirety of the North and the Westerlands. This would be common knowledge to every high lord, even an fool like Balon. Balon being deluded is a more appropriate explanation. Sometimes it's very hard to reconcile the secondary sources with the books.

Quote

Well we don't know if Stannis was embittered 15 years ago, do we? Though I concede the point that it's very possible he grew more and more bitter as time went by due to actions that he perceived as slights. There was of course giving Renly the better title (which was a good call, in my opinion, considering Stannis would rather had hanged all those traitorous lords), then giving Stannis a wife (though from a good family) that he didn't get along with, and then of course the fiasco on the wedding night. Also Stannis did not get the role of Hand, which he totally super-duper deserved.

I would hazard a guess there would be bitterness in regards to the fact that Stannis could not win his brother's love as Ned did, but this is not the same bitterness that you assert would have made a poor ruler. I don't think it's highly probable that bitterness existed in a young Stannis.

As for Stannis hanging all those lords, I am not so sure. Stannis can be an inflexible bastard but not through and through; he pardoned the Storm lords (and what remained of the Reach lords) because he saw the folly in trying to punish their treason, thus it's not unrealistic to suggest Stannis would also see the folly in punishing the Storm lords when he's trying to cement his rule as the new liege lord as a part of the larger context of Robert trying to cement his position as king. It could have went either way really, thus I don't think we can state what Stannis would have done so dogmatically.

Consider how even 15 years after the siege's end Stannis has almost universal respect for holding Storm's End. So easy to exploited it in the immediate aftermath of the siege; the man that stood against the Reach lords and showed the realm what the men of the Stormlands are made out of being made the new liege? A great way to cement a Stannis rule with the Storm lords respecting their new liege and viewing him as a worthy one.

As for the Florent's marriage... aside from Robert dishonoring himself and his brother on the actual wedding night I can recall nothing of Stannis begrudging Robert for arranging the marriage and disparaging it as a bad choice he didn't deserve. Certainly it's an unhappy marriage and a wife he resents, but that's not the same thing.

His bitterness over not being made Hand hearkens back to old, emotional wounds; he wanted his brother's love and maybe thought he had earned it with all those years of service, yet appointing Ned reopened those old wounds. I viewed it as Stannis simply lashing out. We're scarcely rational creatures when it concerns matters of family and love.

Quote

Well this is incorrect. Once again, GRRM in the same SSM in which he talked about Robert's motivation stated that "Robert could just as lawfully retained both castles for his sons, and made Joffrey the Prince of Dragonstone and Tommen the Lord of Storm's End." The Crownlands, Stormlands and the Dragonstone were Roberts to keep or give, and he generously gave them to his brothers. As stated by the author. Debating this, in all seriousness, is a bit of a moot effort.

I still find it hard to reconcile those words with what I actually read (similar to how I cannot reconcile the assertion that Stannis is an atheist with the books). Still, that's simply me, so as far as this matter is concerned when divorced of all feeling and personal impression, I leave you with this:

Curse you, Humble Maester. Curse you for forcing me to acquiesce on this topic. Damn you. Damn your humble hide.

Quote

I am sorry, I am drawing a blank here. Who exactly says that Storm's End was Stannis' by right? I am asking sincerely as I do not recall this, and I unfortunately don't have everything in the books memorized.

As it stands, Cersei is the most prominent example that comes to mind. I swear other characters have stated as much as well, but I'll have to look out for that when I reread A Clash for Kings.

Quote

I am sure the people in the series, as do I, see Stannis' point (as I already stated I understood his grievance, while not agreeing with it). The fact that Stannis was bitter about him, as the elder sibling, getting the worse fief is understandable from his point of view, even if there was a plethora of good reasons for things happening as they did. Though, to be fair, pretty much all the conversations we see Stannis have were with people who were his inferiors and underlings, and those would not hassle Stannis about his negative feelings vis-a-vis Stormlands.

If you empathize with the mindset at the very least, that puts much of this debate to rest really. I was under the impression you had a very different opinion.

Also, I wasn't necessarily referring to those interacting with Stannis; I meant how in a general sense the fact no one disparages the bitterness over Storm's End speaks a fair amount.

Quote

I am not sure what you are referring to as Stannis starting out as the weakest contender, though.

Stannis starts out with a paltry army (relative to the other Kings) of 5,000—many of his soldiers are mercenaries and his army is poorly equipped too if we take Renly's mockery at face value (though I concede this may be empty bragging on Renly's part). I do not view this as a coincidence; it's to further place emphasis what Stannis lost out on when Renly was given Storm's End.

[Red Helm]

On 4/30/2016 at 7:23 PM, Sullen said:

Meaning he only realized it was the wrong thing to do after actually doing it.

Him not being aware of the plan and still expecting to triumph against Renly would make him the most suicidal character in the series, or a completely blind follower of Melissandre. And I don't think Stannis is either.

Intervention from the Red God he uses as a tool and black magic. I suspect he had an awareness that would be his salvation, but not something he would contribute to in the way he did.

Quote

He was blinded, and still charged, without expecting a trap.

That for me is rather weak as far as tactical excellence goes.

I assume you mean Florent's command over the fleet charging into the rush? That's more indicative of times and Westerosi mindset. For a real comparison: at the Battle of Agincourt the French contributed to their own defeat as the nobles squabbled among themselves about who should command this and that, I have higher birth so I get this and that, not you, etc, etc. In the end, a lord needs to be appeased else you risk internal discord. Is it any wonder that Stannis holds the lords in contempt?

Edit: Nyrhex has some good arguments to support the assertion that Imry was a decent choice.

Quote

If Robb even could make it back North, which Balon and Victarion made sure couldn't happen, and which they would have done whether or not Theon had taken Winterfell. The Tyrells joining the Lannisters is what made sure he couldn't win under any circumstance, though Balon did help, and Theon expedited his end. But Robb would have lost even without Theon, he simply wouldn't have been killed at a wedding banquet.

If we're referring to a healthy, hale garrison and Robb simply throwing numbers from the south, then yes, a futile effort. We, however, know this is not the case given that the garrison has been bled by the crannogmen for months and Robb's tactics, which I think would have been successful. 

The Tyrell/Lannister alliance assured the conflict went to a definitive stalemate. If Robb made it past the Neck—as I believe he would be successful doing—the Tyrells and Lannisters could do nothing except make thousands of southron women widows.

Without the fall of Winterfell one of the Red Wedding's main architects does not turn cloak and the catalyst that spurred House Frey into betraying Robb, Jeyne, does not exist either, as Robb slept with Jeyne due to the grief Rickon and Bran's "deaths" caused him. 

The Tyrell/Lannister alliance stamped out any chance of a Stark victory south of the Neck but resulted in a stalemate as oppose to an outright defeat.

Quote

Mace Tyrell categorically opposes Stannis as a King due to their past dealings, would see a King with a Florent entourage as a threat, see Renly backing off on their deal to make Marge queen as a betrayal, and would turn to Joffrey as soon as he could. No one wants Stannis as their King, and many actually fear him gaining any power.

Not saying you are wrong and not denying Mace's concerns, but I recall so much of the alliance being shattered by the direction the Reach lords took after Renly's death hinging on Loras—Loras being the son that Mace dotes on so much and the one that talked him into raising the banners. I may have to concede you're right about this, but that's going to come when I reread A Clash of Kings (half-way through A Game of Thrones right now).

If Renly bends the knee Loras doesn't run off with the rest of the Reach lords and spurn Highgarden away from Stannis. Not to mention the fact Renly bending to Stannis opens up the greater likelihood of Robb bending the knee.

Quote

Renly holds no responsibility for botching the power bloc, he had already established one that would have simply kept growing, Stannis is the one who destroyed it without having anything positive to contribute to it.

Cannot really debate this without clearing the above issue up.

Quote

I think that the excuse that Stannis didn't knowingly kill Renly depends too much on him acting out of character and dismisses too much to be credible. Cressen (the only person to have ever loved Stannis) even accuses him of planning fratricide, and Stannis fails to deny it.

I think he knew Renly would die, but that it would be the Red God or black magic he would have no part of. After Renly's death, he connected the dots, and then fell into denial.

I would hazard a guess Cressen's accusations fall into that somewhat.

Quote

I don't think Stannis was certain he had divine powers on his side, as he claims not to believe in the Gods, any of them. From his PoV, Melisandre's powers are barely tools, and no proof that a greater being backs him.

I view Stannis as a man that believes in the God, the Seven and the Red God, but simply does not give a damn about them. They cannot be subjected to duty, they took his parents, and all that Stannis cares about flows through man, not the Gods. Stannis believes in the Red Gods like the Seven, but thinks how best the Gods can serve him as oppose to the king serving the Gods, which is an instrumental part of monarchy. God serving man, divorcing monarchy from the Gods... setting aside our debate for a moment, these are some fascinating themes are they not?

Quote

I mentioned the notion of him toying around with the idea of his nephew as an example of how he lead to the Baratheon downfall, it isn't enough that he kills a brother, leaves another one to die, wages an unwinnable war, but he also needs to consider sacrificing one of the few recognized bastards to advance his position.

Except it's scarcely as selfish as you present it to be. Stannis views it as a sacrifice that of absolute necessity to humanity. He thinks his own destruction is inevitable in the end.

Quote

Which would have been a good thing if he did it in times of peace, instead he does it at the worst possible time.

Yes, not the wisest of choices.

Though nullified in the mind of Stannis by the fact that he believes a God is his tool.

Quote

Selyse and Axel have Sunglass sacrificed while Stannis is away, but his lack of punishing them shows he supported the act, or at least is too weak to stand up to his wife/Melisandre in that aspect. In either case, it's unjust, if you ask me.

I would hazard a guess he neglected it because of the desperation and despondency after Blackwater. I agree that not punishing them is unjust. And course by not doing so it falls into hypocrisy as Stannis is not upholding his duty to bring justice. 

(Though if I was really reaching, I would spit out that they hidden Sunglass being burned from him)

However, I do not think those moments are hypocrisy are enough to define him and mitigate how driven by duty he is.

Edit: Turns out Sunglass went back on his oath. That's why he was executed.

Quote

He threatens Renly with death, despite the odds being visibly in Renly's favour, seeming quite sure of himself.

Consistent with my beliefs: he knew Red God/black magic/etc. would kill Renly and mark his victory, but not that he would have as personal contribution as he actually did with the shadow baby.

Quote

1. It still makes him crown himself knowing he'll have to go through his brother, while the same doesn't apply to Renly.

Not so sure about Renly. I think he was damn well aware that Stannis would retaliate.

There is one thing mitigating this somewhat which is a decent theory: Renly was essentially half-forced into kingship the way Robb was.

Quote

2. Except it doesn't fit Renly's character, he's rather unabashed about being called usurper. Renly probably didn't even think of Stannis when he crowned himself, seeing as Stannis had been AWOL for a year and wasn't even the heir in Renly's eyes.

If he's an "asshole" as you state below, it seems consistent that he would be unabashed at being called a usurper, does it not? 

Well that comes down our individual, subjective interpretations really.

Quote

3. They don't have a good shot at defeating the Lannisters if they antagonize the Tyrells, which is what bending the knee to Stannis would have led to.

As stated above, I will have to go through this. I recall Loras as sealing the deal.

Quote

He doesn't "find out" though, he thinks Stannis is using a ridiculous self-serving lie to paint himself as Robert's rightful heir, Stannis having no actual proof of what he's advancing isn't really convincing after all.

Didn't he accept it when Catelyn came to him with the information?

Quote

Renly did plenty of wrong, starving an entire city who he claims to love/ (and claims to love him back) for one, being a general asshole and all-around bully for another, but nothing in the way he acted with Stannis or the Lannisters was wrong, that's entirely on Stannis failing to inform Renly of his suspicions while Robert was still alive.

Considering that I have said the choice Stannis made to flee to Dragonstone was ultimately the wrong one, answer me this so we can be done with this particular matter: do you at least empathize with the mindset Stannis had when he fled? You almost do that by stating above how self-serving the incest makes Stannis seem, and given how deluded Robert can be and how strained the relationship is, it's little wonder that Stannis felt backed into a corner and unable to succeed in carrying out his duty, thus fled to Dragonstone. Wrong, hypocritical, failing his brother, but a very human decision I emphasize with.

[Batbob45]

Robert and Renly were way worse brother to Stannis than Stannis was for them

Robert-he gave Renly Storm's end(an hold that Stannis deserved) and Robert arranged Stannis to marry Selyse(who is not an nice person).

Renly-he  had no love or respect for Stannis' side of the family

While both were terrible brother to Stannis, I still think Robert was an better uncle, because he is more uncle material than father material.

I doubt Stannis knew about shadowbinding until after Renly was killed.