Why is Stannis an Appealing Character?

[MoreOrLess]

On ‎19‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 6:36 PM, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Yah. I always saw his sigil as poetic symbolism. The burning heart. Shireen was the only person he ever loved, and quite possibly the only person who ever loved him. When he burned Shireen he burned his heart. Tragic symmetry.

A big issue for me with Stannis's story is that so much of the drama comes down to subtly of performance. That last talk with Shireen especially  really gets this across for me, this isn't a man willing to kill his daughter because he thinks its a path to power that will make him happier. Rather this is a man who feels that both his need to become king as a counter to the Walkers and the duty to enforce his birth right means he has to kill her even though its going to ensure the rest of his life tainted with the guilt of it.

The duty to your birth right is I think often overlooked, in most feudal societies birth right isn't just an opportunity its an obligation, the certainty of succession via birth right brings stability, rejecting it potentially opens the way for civil war(although of course the opposite is true as here) so is viewed as a failing.

[The Onion Kniggit]

Well beyond his bravery and physical prowess in battle, the dude on the show is one hell of a bumbling, weak minded, inconsistent and straight up nonsensically written character. Despite this, the fact that ShowStan could still appeal to plenty of show only fans until his last family BBQ (even then I've seen some who still root for him after that) is a huge testament to what he could've been...

Really the Lore & History of Westeros from the Game of Thrones Behind the scenes DVD does more for his character in his less than 10 minutes of monologue as well as Davos' than then the entire 4 seasons did for him. Not surprising given they didn't screw with the lore from the books like they did with the actual story.

[Lord Stannis-The True King]

14 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

A big issue for me with Stannis's story is that so much of the drama comes down to subtly of performance. That last talk with Shireen especially  really gets this across for me, this isn't a man willing to kill his daughter because he thinks its a path to power that will make him happier. Rather this is a man who feels that both his need to become king as a counter to the Walkers and the duty to enforce his birth right means he has to kill her even though its going to ensure the rest of his life tainted with the guilt of it.

The duty to your birth right is I think often overlooked, in most feudal societies birth right isn't just an opportunity its an obligation, the certainty of succession via birth right brings stability, rejecting it potentially opens the way for civil war(although of course the opposite is true as here) so is viewed as a failing.

Completely agree. In Shireen's death he found no joy. Had he become king and lived until his 90's with a successful rule and a peaceful kingdom he would not have one day of happiness. The throne wasn't coveted by Stannis. It wasn't something to make his life better or to make him happy or rich. There was no selfish desire there. It was, in fact quite the opposite. It was obligation. To his name, to the Kingdoms and to the people. I honestly think he would have been most content carving out his own little world on Dragon Stone. Spending time with his daughter and hanging with Davos. Isolated from a world full of people who didn't respect or understand him. Free from the obligations placed on Robert and Renly. That's what makes him a great ruler. He took the hard path. He sacrificed everything he held dear and all to achieve an outcome he knew he would hate. And all for the good of the people. The same people who despised and mistrusted him. Who never respected or appreciated him. And all because it was the right thing to do. It was his duty. Regardless of how he was mistreated. Truly, a tragic character for the ages.

[MoreOrLess]

6 hours ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Completely agree. In Shireen's death he found no joy. Had he become king and lived until his 90's with a successful rule and a peaceful kingdom he would not have one day of happiness. The throne wasn't coveted by Stannis. It wasn't something to make his life better or to make him happy or rich. There was no selfish desire there. It was, in fact quite the opposite. It was obligation. To his name, to the Kingdoms and to the people. I honestly think he would have been most content carving out his own little world on Dragon Stone. Spending time with his daughter and hanging with Davos. Isolated from a world full of people who didn't respect or understand him. Free from the obligations placed on Robert and Renly. That's what makes him a great ruler. He took the hard path. He sacrificed everything he held dear and all to achieve an outcome he knew he would hate. And all for the good of the people. The same people who despised and mistrusted him. Who never respected or appreciated him. And all because it was the right thing to do. It was his duty. Regardless of how he was mistreated. Truly, a tragic character for the ages.

I don't think you can say there was no vanity to him although ironically I think less so as the story progressed. Up until Blackwater(well up until the vision after it) on the show I don't think the belief in Mel was as strong plus equally importantly there wasn't the same sense of guilt, so much blood being spent meaning that he had to carry on to justify it.

Generally I think Stannis is setup as a mirror to Dany, really I don't think you can say he was more vain than her at points, perhaps less so and obviously vastly less so than many other characters. The difference for me is the ideals they follow and those they have around them, Stannis basically follows "the end justify the means"(actually follows it not uses it as a selfish justification like Tywin)  as talked up by Mel with supernatural backing, Dany on the other hand focuses more on personal compassion as espoused by Jorah and latter her other advisors.

[Lord Gelgar]

On 9/3/2016 at 3:29 PM, Dex drako said:

I really don't understand this view as the way the story works demands Jon be the one to take winterfell.

jon and dany's stories are paralleled if Dany comes back from the Dothraki sea to win the battle of fire then Jon has come back from the dead to win the batter of ice. it's just how these characters work and it just makes more sense as winterfell is important to Jon character arc and and moves his KITN plot forward.

I hadn't thought of it that way and it is rather interesting but in a sense it means we will need two battles of ice and one battle of fire in the books, which I can't see happening and even though Jon and Dany have the Targaryen parallel, it's interesting to note the parallels between Stannis and Dany as well. The two of them want the Iron Throne, burn people and will stop at nothing to get what they want. A long forshadowed plot is an eventual conflict between these two characters. The HOTU prophecy describes Dany as the slayer of lies and one of those lies is "the blue eyed king who casts no shadow". If George hasn't straight up forgot about that prophecy (I doubt he has) it will come into play and it describes Stannis perfectly! It also happens in A Clash of Kings where Stannis is introduced, something probably not by accident. A vision Stannis had on the other hand was a king (himself) wearing a crown of fire that consumes him, perhaps dragon fire? The way the show handled things I can't imagine these prophecies meaning anything so they simply aren't in the show. However if the books don't address them it would really show the books themselves have gone off the rails and I just can't see that happening. An alternative though that I'm definitely leaning towards is actually a conflict between Jon and Stannis at Winterfell. This development would be a very nice way to end this phase of the northern plot. Stannis may very well start burning people that defy him in Winterfell going more and more power mad as the snows come in. The plot symmetry of having the true lord of lights chosen vs the false lord of lights chosen would not be lost on the reader! Just some things to consider!

[Lord Gelgar]

Also if the book opened with both Dany and Stannis overcoming this huge challenge and then the two come into conflict with each other in the middle or end of Winds it would give the beginning of the book even more meaning than it had before. 

[Jedi Renee]

On 01/08/2016 at 8:53 PM, Future Null Infinity said:

Personal opinion : it's a matter of preference and taste, some people like realistic heroes and some like fantasy heroes, the good thing is that the story gave us the two types, he's one of my favourite characters because his story is realistic, he's a man on a mission, he get usurped and he did whatever he can to restore justice for him and his house, he is the only character who think about the smallfolks in his story, as a character I like his courage and his sense of justice.

and stannis is a one of the most human characters, he tried, he made mistakes and he died, this why his story is realistic

and his story doesn't contain elements of mary sueing like my four other mary sue characters

Well spoken indeed

On 01/08/2016 at 9:45 PM, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Exactly. I like Stannis too, I really sympathize him. Stannis shows how determintaion and sence of duty can lead someone to a tragic end. He is similiar to Ned in his intentions, but kind of Ned without loving or being loved. And this lack of love makes  him really tragic figure.

So much stannis love  

Good stuff 

On 02/08/2016 at 0:42 PM, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Spoilers: It should be pointed out that you are talking show only while the majority of the "Mannis" fandom comes from the books where he last left off

  Hide contents

he hasn't burned his daughter and has an army mostly made up of Robb's old bannermen

 

All of this!

Long live the one true king :^)

[MoreOrLess]

On ‎05‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 4:05 PM, Lord Gelgar said:

I hadn't thought of it that way and it is rather interesting but in a sense it means we will need two battles of ice and one battle of fire in the books, which I can't see happening and even though Jon and Dany have the Targaryen parallel, it's interesting to note the parallels between Stannis and Dany as well. The two of them want the Iron Throne, burn people and will stop at nothing to get what they want. A long forshadowed plot is an eventual conflict between these two characters. The HOTU prophecy describes Dany as the slayer of lies and one of those lies is "the blue eyed king who casts no shadow". If George hasn't straight up forgot about that prophecy (I doubt he has) it will come into play and it describes Stannis perfectly! It also happens in A Clash of Kings where Stannis is introduced, something probably not by accident. A vision Stannis had on the other hand was a king (himself) wearing a crown of fire that consumes him, perhaps dragon fire? The way the show handled things I can't imagine these prophecies meaning anything so they simply aren't in the show. However if the books don't address them it would really show the books themselves have gone off the rails and I just can't see that happening. An alternative though that I'm definitely leaning towards is actually a conflict between Jon and Stannis at Winterfell. This development would be a very nice way to end this phase of the northern plot. Stannis may very well start burning people that defy him in Winterfell going more and more power mad as the snows come in. The plot symmetry of having the true lord of lights chosen vs the false lord of lights chosen would not be lost on the reader! Just some things to consider!

I think Stannis's vision would definitely make sense with a story similar(although doubtless more complex) to the shows, the crown of fire seems clearly to represent his kingship being linked to following Mel that ultimately destroys him. In generaly the show greatly cuts down in these kinds of visions and prophecys, I suspect so that the ones they do include for Bran, Dany and Cersei carry more weight to them. The books are a vastly longer narrative after all with more time to slot in more of this kind of thing without it becoming overplayed.

Again I think Stannis serves as an alternative to Dany, characters like Tywin, Joffery, Cersei, etc are obviously unfit to rule and must be opposed but the question becomes how. I think the intension with Stannis is to have a character who has many creditable aspects to his personality but ultimately fails due to a lack of compassion, you could argue perhaps the Starks pre Jon representing the opposite with compassion but only focused on their own family at the expense of the common folk.

[JonSnow4President]

5 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

I think Stannis's vision would definitely make sense with a story similar(although doubtless more complex) to the shows, the crown of fire seems clearly to represent his kingship being linked to following Mel that ultimately destroys him.

I view it slightly differently, but it comes across as a big difference in how I view the character.  Rather than him being destroyed by using the Red God as his religion, I think the vision is a representation that his acts as king will consume everything he himself is, until he has burned his life down to ash.  That's how you get Shireen being burned to save the world.  

Quote

"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?" The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"

"Everything," said Davos, softly.

Ultimately, Davos' answer is Everything because at this point, Stannis is still very much in his "right personal wrongs" stage (note that the purpose of this sarifice is for Joffrey to die).  His sacrifice of one bastard boy for his personal gain is nothing but evil.  This is why you see so many complaints about the burning of Shireen in the show. For everything we can tell based on screen, AND BASED ON D&D COMMENTS, Stannis is burning Shireen to  fulfill his ambition.  The character hasn't learned or progressed from Gendry.  

Cut to a situation where Stannis is fighting the Others, and in desperate need of supernatural intervention.  That is where I can see him burning Shireen (remember, she's not with him as he's preparing to fight the Boltons).  He is the one man in ten thousand who will choose duty at the cost to love that Aemon refers to.  And instead of sacrificing a child for personal gain, he is sacrificing one life in order to save every life in Westeros.  His duty as Lord Protector of the Realm (who is an atheist, but sees there is clearly magical force in Melisandre's religious acts) ultimately causes him to burn his own child in desperation.  Because he is trying to do the right thing.  

When the better fit with the character is a scene where he commits the ultimate sacrifice in order to save humanity at great personal cost, it comes across a hell of a lot better than a guy who burns his daughter for ambition. 

[Opercer]

I disagree. I never liked show Stannis. He was stubborn, fatalistic in his thinking and followed his duty blindly to the point of becoming evil,his downfall was just a matter of time. He burned innocent people alive, all in the name of duty and to make it worse it wasn't his idea but the idea of someone else. Stannis was fighting to become King while he himself was ruled by the Red Woman and he didn't even realize it. I can't look at his character after what he did to Shireen. But I have to admit that I felt sad for him at the end, he lost everything and the actor was so good at showing how lost  and miserable Stannis was in his last moments before being killed. 

 

[JonSnow4President]

2 minutes ago, Opercer said:

I disagree. I never liked show Stannis. He was stubborn, fatalistic in his thinking and followed his duty blindly to the point of becoming evil,his downfall was just a matter of time. He burned innocent people alive, all in the name of duty and to make it worse it wasn't his idea but the idea of someone else. Stannis was fighting to become King while he himself was ruled by the Red Woman and he didn't even realize it. I can't look at his character after what he did to Shireen. But I have to admit that I felt sad for him at the end, he lost everything and the actor was so good at showing how lost  and miserable Stannis was in his last moments before being killed. 

 

And that's kind of the point of the thread.  The OP was asking why so many DO like him. So much of the love for him comes from book fans.  Show Stannis is not Book Stannis. 

[Desert Fox]

I think a lot of people are drinking the Stannis koolaid that Davos is selling. Davos has a huge mancrush on Stannis and idolizes him. I think there is a huge heaping of vanity and ambition mixed in with his Duty. He's starting a second civil war after losing the first just to gain the crown. That's not duty.

But that is why I love the character.

I also don't agree that the mannis is mostly a book thing. The show made him more audience friendly by having him fight with his men and showing him loving his daughter. Do stannis and Shireen even talk in the books? The show just turned the table in S5 and have him go down in inevitable bad path.

[JonSnow4President]

7 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I think a lot of people are drinking the Stannis koolaid that Davos is selling. Davos has a huge mancrush on Stannis and idolizes him. I think there is a huge heaping of vanity and ambition mixed in with his Duty. He's starting a second civil war after losing the first just to gain the crown. That's not duty.

But that is why I love the character.

I also don't agree that the mannis is mostly a book thing. The show made him more audience friendly by having him fight with his men and showing him loving his daughter. Do stannis and Shireen even talk in the books? The show just turned the table in S5 and have him go down in inevitable bad path.

I think that it's undeniable that heaping of vanity is there pre-Blackwater.  Post-Blackwater though, I disagree.  There's some there (otherwise he wouldn't be human), but it is far from his most dominant motivation.  

[MoreOrLess]

On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 5:44 PM, JonSnow4President said:

I view it slightly differently, but it comes across as a big difference in how I view the character.  Rather than him being destroyed by using the Red God as his religion, I think the vision is a representation that his acts as king will consume everything he himself is, until he has burned his life down to ash.  That's how you get Shireen being burned to save the world.  

I would say a combination of both, the fire represents following the Red God but him being burnt by it represents as you say as much him destroying that which he values as well as his death/failiure.

Really I would question the need for this on the show, I think Stannis's downfall is heavily implied though out his story.

[JonSnow4President]

8 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

I would say a combination of both, the fire represents following the Red God but him being burnt by it represents as you say as much him destroying that which he values as well as his death/failiure.

Really I would question the need for this on the show, I think Stannis's downfall is heavily implied though out his story.

It's not particularly useful as foreshadowing.  It's useful as showing that he will press on doing what he views as right, even though he knows it will destroy him.  That's a special kind of courage that many of us talk a big game, but so few actually follow up on when given the chance.  

[Simbacca]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 4:54 AM, Desert Fox said:

I think a lot of people are drinking the Stannis koolaid that Davos is selling. Davos has a huge mancrush on Stannis and idolizes him. I think there is a huge heaping of vanity and ambition mixed in with his Duty. He's starting a second civil war after losing the first just to gain the crown. That's not duty.

...

Stannis didn't start the war.  The Lannisters were stealing the Baratheon's family inheritance.  By claiming to be Robert's children, Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella, can claim not just the Iron Throne, but all Baratheon lands, estates, titles, and wealth, since Robert was the oldest brother.  Was Stannis just suppose to sit back and let that happen?  And after Ned Stark made his false confession, Stannis was seen as a traitor to the public. Joffrey was demanding his head.  With Renly, I'm sure Stannis saw him as being used by the Tyrells.  For Renly to become King, he would have to get rid of Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella, Stannis, and Shireen, because of the line of secession.  So now Stannis is facing a threat from the Crown/Lannisters on one side and Renly/Tyrells on the other.  He then saw Robb as hostile when Robb chose to make an alliance with Renly.

He gave the Lannisters a chance to admit the truth. He gave Renly a chance to back down.  The show excuses the Lannisters and Renly for their actions, even though they were in the wrong.  How is Stannis fighting back wrong, but the Starks fighting back seen as right.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

Stannis in the book, for starters, has a great intellect. He is knowledgeable of history, politics and into critical thinking, despite his adherence to the law. He has a dry wit about him that make him one of the funniest characters. He is very complex, compelling and tragic. Personally I am drawn to these kind of characters that are doomed to fail, despite their best efforts. He also has this kind of dark, insulting and insensitive attitude that would be insufferable in real life but makes him kind of "the bad guy among the good guys". I enjoy that even the Lannister fear him for his merciless demeanor and experienced militarism. (in the books, he is an anti-hero. In the show, they went for a villain instead. A conflicted villain, but a villain nonetheless).

[Lord Gelgar]

Boltons are about to get rekt! 

Ours is the Fury!

[Lord_Ravenstone]

On 9/27/2016 at 1:54 AM, Desert Fox said:

I think a lot of people are drinking the Stannis koolaid that Davos is selling. Davos has a huge mancrush on Stannis and idolizes him. I think there is a huge heaping of vanity and ambition mixed in with his Duty. He's starting a second civil war after losing the first just to gain the crown. That's not duty.

But that is why I love the character.

I also don't agree that the mannis is mostly a book thing. The show made him more audience friendly by having him fight with his men and showing him loving his daughter. Do stannis and Shireen even talk in the books? The show just turned the table in S5 and have him go down in inevitable bad path.

It's not just Davos that paints an appealing portrayal of Stannis though. So do Jon, Mel, Ned, Varys and Asha. 

Stannis is a weird fusion of King Arthur, Judge Dredd and that whiny middle manager at Walmart that keeps getting passed up for promotions because no one likes him despite being competent at his job.

The Mannis is a show construction though but Book Stannis is kind of badass too just less in a physical way and more that his will is made of steel.

I have felt from the beginning that Stannis was a greater danger than all the others combined. -Tywin

His eyes were sunk in deep pits, his close-cropped beard no more than a shadow across his hollow cheeks and bony jawbone. Yet there was power in his stare, an iron ferocity that told Asha this man would never, ever turn back from his course.- Asha

[Radish Knight]

I think most of it is to do with the base of how George wrote Stannis and Dillane's portrayal of him (though from what I heard he never really understood the character fully in the show).