Stannis is a righteous man according to GRRM

[Xenophon]

Killing Renly is probably the biggest problem for the view that Stannis follows an objective moral code. Kinslaying seems to be a major taboo in Westeros trumping almost everything else. Now, Stannis may not have "killed" him in the ordinary sense of the word, and Renly's treason (from Stannis's POV) may excuse it, but it's still a big problem.

[Ahmrogar]

Killing Renly is probably the biggest problem for the view that Stannis follows an objective moral code. Kinslaying seems to be a major taboo in Westeros trumping almost everything else. Now, Stannis may not have "killed" him in the ordinary sense of the word, and Renly's treason (from Stannis's POV) may excuse it, but it's still a big problem.

I was under the impression that the law transcends these things.

Same reason why Robb kills the Karstarks, they are kin, but they are treacherous kin. Traitors die.

[Asarlai]

Murdering family: "Kinslaying"

Executing traitor: "Justice"

Killing leader of enemy army: "War"

From what I have gathered of their views.

[MinotaurWarrior]

And so it was to be that what was once known as the "War of the Five Kings" came to be known as the "Kinslaying Justice War"

[jurble]

I don't know.

Is he deserving? Why?

Ned and Stannis are not parallels.

Ned is much more honorable than dutiful, and Stannis is much more dutiful than honorable.

I'll give you that Stannis isn't necessarily stupid. But I wouldn't say he lacks idealism. For the most part it is Stannis' inflexible ideals that define him as a character.

Indeed, whereas Ned forewarned Cersei, and told her to flee for the sake of her children's lives, Stannis would have strung her and the children up.

[Myrish swan]

I think Stannis is a man with an iron sense of duty but he is also an arch pragmatist and has been shown to be willing to compromise these ideals when it benefits him.

This is actually the best summation of Stannis I've ever heard. I agree 150 percent... the man's not a hypocrite per say, but he sure is willing to compromise when it benefits him.

In many ways Davos is his conscience, but without The Onion Knight Stannis has the potential to become a tyrant. Looking at the world in terms of right and wrong and black and white is extremely dangerous.

Yeah... Davos is his good angel, Mel his bad angel. (Though I realize that this is simplifying the matter a whole lot.) The issue I'm curious about is what is going to happen if (or when?) Stan loses both of these advisors. Contrary to the beliefs of many, I think Davos may well be dead. And judging by their interactions in ASOS, who's to say that Mel will not abandon Stannis for a far more likely Azor Azai candidate, Jon. Where will Stan be if or when this happens? I say he may well be a broken man, and one willing to do anything to regain what he feels is his rightful title. Thus, sacrificing a kid with Kings blood to wake the stone dragons may well become his last resort. And it keeps occuring to me that there is one little girl hanging around who, through her father, does indeed have some "kings blood" in her... You must admit, it would be a striking end for ADWD to end with Stan burning his daughter. Or to end with a Shireen POV chapter that ends with daddy throwing her on the fire at mommy's request. After all, i did read in the reviewe that ADWD ends with a "shocking scene." Hmmm.

Re: Stannis going to the wall-- this is interesting, because its unclear to me whether he did it out of pure duty or desperation. I mean, at this point, where else does he have to go? He has decisively lost at Blackwater, and soon Dragonstone will fall. So he goes north to gather support. He orignially urges Jon Snow to take over Winterfell, so he can get the northern bannermen to follow him. Was it really riteousness that led Stan to the wall, or simply ambition and pragmatism again

[GreenSeeress]

Hmm, I tried to post and it disappeared. Sorry my prior post materializes eventually and makes this one repetitive.

To me, Davos is the key to Stannis. Davos is an essentially honorable man forced by circumstances to become a smuggler. He accepts Stannis' "justice" and allows himself to be maimed -- even though he had just saved Stannis' ass -- because he acknowledged his guilt for his earlier acts and knew that the good did not wash away the bad.

Stannis' earlier acts are all good and honorable: he is loyal to Robert and helps him win his throne, he accepts Robert's snub and goes to Dragonstone while Renly gets Storms' End. He goes to the Wall to save the Nights' Watch. But he forgets his own judgment of Davos, and thinks that his prior good acts wash away the bad acts that follow, i.e., having an affair with Melisandre, threatening to burn his nephew and ward, allowing Melisandre to use dark magic to kill Renly who, while guilty of treason in Stannis' eyes, doesn't get get either "due process" or a face to face battle before being condemned to death.

There is much that is good and admirable in Stannis, and much that is not. The former does not wash away the latter. If only there were someone near Stannis who could cut off his finger tips, and help him recognize and accept for himself the judgment he passed on Davos. Davos has grown past Stannis -- way past.

[Raksha the Demon]

Stannis is a good example of how doing the just thing and doing the honourable thing aren't necessarily one and the same. Is absolute justice without being tempered by compassion true justice at all? I believe not, but that may not be everyone's perspective. The law above all else? Not for me.

I can't get past Stannis allowing, and in some cases, encouraging, the burning alive of people. At least he gave Renly a relatively quick death; and it's still neither lawful nor righteous to assassinate one's brother. Seriously planning to burn his innocent young nephew alive? Not righteous. Burning men to death because, when they were starving, they ate a dead man's flesh? Cruel beyond belief.

[oscarinfw]

How "righteous" will he feel when the Targaryens (Dany, Aegon) return to Westoros to make public their claims or when/if he finds out Jon is the Targaryen heir (assuming (married) R+L=J) ? After all, is not his elder brother the "Usurper" ?

[danm_999]

Burning men to death because, when they were starving, they ate a dead man's flesh? Cruel beyond belief.

It's not very humane, but cruel beyond belief?

Maybe in a modern justice system, but Stannis is hardly alone in a culture of unpleasant executions. He's not even the only character to burn his enemies, so I don't agree it's unbelievable.

[Lord Ben]

I think Stannis is a man with an iron sense of duty but he is also an arch pragmatist and has been shown to be willing to compromise these ideals when it benefits him. He seems a man convinced of his own righteousness, but it isn't tempered by any sense of compassion. In many ways Davos is his conscience, but without The Onion Knight Stannis has the potential to become a tyrant. Looking at the world in terms of right and wrong and black and white is extremely dangerous.

I guess I see him as having conflicting responsibilities and duties and he's able to choose and prioritize. He feels a duty to Edric and a duty to end the war, he wrestles with which is most important not which benefits him the most. If it were as simple as that he'd have been on a pyre long before Davos could do anything.

[LuisDantas]

My take about GRRM's opinion on Stannis in that interview is that the emphasis is on how lucky Stannis is to have learned of the Others. Had he not, he would be similar to Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI, going by the literal text of the interview.

It is worth noticing that none of the three was particularly righteous or honorable - and neither is Stannis, even as circunstances keep encouraging him to learn to be.

[LuisDantas]

Killing Renly is probably the biggest problem for the view that Stannis follows an objective moral code. Kinslaying seems to be a major taboo in Westeros trumping almost everything else. Now, Stannis may not have "killed" him in the ordinary sense of the word, and Renly's treason (from Stannis's POV) may excuse it, but it's still a big problem.

It is a far bigger problem than just ordinary kinslaying, in fact. That is only an aggravation, a very secondary one. His main fault was in betraying the confidence of a rival King and murdering him to steal his troops. That is essentially inexcusable.

[LuisDantas]

I was under the impression that the law transcends these things.

Same reason why Robb kills the Karstarks, they are kin, but they are treacherous kin. Traitors die.

I am afraid that such is a very jaundiced reading of the whole scenario. The high level treachery of failing to respect basic war ethics is what transcends any lawful claims that he might have had, instead.

[lakin1013]

I do not find Stannis particularly righteous and certainly not honorable. He has a code of beliefs he sticks to and that can be admired, even when the code is wrong. But he changes the code when it suits him -- sleeping with Melisandre, for example, seemed very out of character for Stannis. He seems like a guy that would value fidelity, yet not of himself. He seems like a guy who would value loyalty, yet he punished his most loyal Davos. He seems like a guy who would do his duty, yet he whined about having to eat cats and dogs, while staying his post. He could not believe his brother would stand in his way to the kingship and he seems honestly unable to understand any other point of view but his own.

So we end up with a harsh, judgemental man who operates from a core set of beliefs but is unable to augment those beliefs with either trust or compassion. A scary guy, if you ask me .... and NOT a king I would want to serve under.

[Lord Ben]

A scary guy, if you ask me .... and NOT a king I would want to serve under.

Who would you wish instead?

[StannisBamfatheon]

Stannis is not Ned Stark. I would argue there's a difference between justice and honor. Stannis doesn't always do the honorable thing(whaddup shadow assassin) but it served to further his cause which he believed just. He's a very divisive figure, one that inspires love(my avatar) or repulsion and hate. Some people see killing Renly has him getting rid of his traitor brother who did not support him after they had grown up together and he had seen all the things Stannis did for Robert (Storm's end, capturing Dragonstone, ruling Dragonstone, serving on the small council). While others view it as the ultra taboo kin slaying and unwarranted murder of an innocent man. Stannis' character is truly an exercise in perspective but ultimately I would say if this were Skyrim, or Mass Effect, one of those RPGS where your characters morality is quantifiable and measured with a meter his would be trending towards good.

[Toccs]

Righteous doesn't mean good. Many of the worst acts in human history were committed by righteous men.

[David C. Hunter]

Indeed, whereas Ned forewarned Cersei, and told her to flee for the sake of her children's lives, Stannis would have strung her and the children up.

Which would have been the smart and much preferred way to do things.

I can't get past Stannis allowing, and in some cases, encouraging, the burning alive of people. At least he gave Renly a relatively quick death; and it's still neither lawful nor righteous to assassinate one's brother. Seriously planning to burn his innocent young nephew alive? Not righteous. Burning men to death because, when they were starving, they ate a dead man's flesh? Cruel beyond belief.

It's not cruel beyond belief. Death is Death. Its against the law to eat another human dead or alive, so they died. Boohoo. Its no different than Dany crucifying people, Manderly eating the Freys, etc etc.

Idk, I understand how you feel but death doesn't bother me that much in this series. I studied middle ages alot and people did not live long. Someone was always getting, killed, robbed and killed, ,burned alive, hung from a tree. Society was a lot more primitive back then. It just happened, we cannot compare it to modern society. If you were a dutiful man and you lived in a feudal system, and you were leading an army, and you were leading an army in a blizzard, and their god needed burned sacrfices, and you caught people eating other people, and the penalty of such was death you would do the same thing, because if you didnt those people who follow you might become a little less easy to control. Killing Theon is going to win the support of the north. Death is Death, fire is just a flavor

Righteous doesn't mean good. Many of the worst acts in human history were committed by righteous men.

Says the guy with Euron avatar, haha. Im just kidding.

[Frumpus]

Why do people make such a big deal over kinslaying? I mean seriously, get over it.