Stannis is a righteous man according to GRRM

[Jolene Brown]

I think what he did to Cortney Penrose was in many ways even worse than what he did to Renly. Hadn't Cortney agreed to single combat (not 100% sure and don't have books with me?)? He was just the castellan, obeying his liege lord, and trying to protect a young boy. You can come up with some justifications for what Stannis did to Renly (although I personally think it was hardly the act of a "just" man), but it is a lot harder to me to justify the murder of Cortney. We see that Davos is profoundly uncomfortable with it.

[Eucratides_Megas]

I think what he did to Cortney Penrose was in many ways even worse than what he did to Renly. Hadn't Cortney agreed to single combat (not 100% sure and don't have books with me?)? He was just the castellan, obeying his liege lord, and trying to protect a young boy. You can come up with some justifications for what Stannis did to Renly (although I personally think it was hardly the act of a "just" man), but it is a lot harder to me to justify the murder of Cortney. We see that Davos is profoundly uncomfortable with it.

Stannis was his liege lord. And I hate to paraphrase Tywin Lannister (this doesn't even approach the Red Wedding), but how does either fighting a pointless duel or storming a castle, ensuring the deaths of all its defenders + thousands of Stannis's own troops somehow seem nobler than killing the enemy commander and ending the whole situation then and there? Stannis didn't offer up Edric Storm to a fire the moment he got him, nor did he even consider it until literally all hope of his victory seemed completely lost. Killing Cortnay saved a lot of lives.

Renly too was a traitor who was more than willing to see his brother dead on the field of battle the very next day. It's a-okay to fight Renly so long as you do it in a bloody melee, outumbered about 10 to 1, with thousands left dead, dying and maimed on the field. But sending a shadow assassin to simply kill him and spare both armies is downright heinous. After all, he was your brother----the same brother who basically told you and the line of succession to f* off, then spent the night preparing to drown you in your own blood.

I don't spare many tears for Renly. He was just as big a dick as Robert ever was, he just hid it beneath a flattering personality and smile.

[GreenSeeress]

I don't shed a tear for Renly either. But it doesn't make the way in which Stannis killed him okay, at least not in my books. Notwithstanding the fact that I have a certain grudging respect and admiration for Stannis, his concept of loyalty seems to run in only one direction, and his concept of justice is a little too self-serving for my taste.

Stannis is complicated, with huge strengths and huge flaws, which makes him a fascinating character, and one of my favorites to read. But I don't really like him. And I can't condone the use of dark magic to stealthily sneak into Renly's camp and kill him. I don't condone that from even the rightful King of the Seven Kingdoms.

[LuisDantas]

Stannis was his liege lord.

Stannis was Penrose's liege lord? That sure is news to me. And to him, I'm willing to bet. Why do you think it is so?

And I hate to paraphrase Tywin Lannister (this doesn't even approach the Red Wedding), but how does either fighting a pointless duel or storming a castle, ensuring the deaths of all its defenders + thousands of Stannis's own troops somehow seem nobler than killing the enemy commander and ending the whole situation then and there?

There is an understanding that the worthy Lord will inspire or convince soldiers to fight for him, while the less worthy will be less succesfull at that. Other factors being equal, might does indeed make right.

Killing the enemy commander in such a treacherous way as Stannis did is cheating with very high stakes at play. And let's not forget, it was Stannis that chose to fight Renly at that point in time; Renly would be happy to fight Tywin Lannister instead, and even happier to let Stannis fight in his stead.

Stannis' choice of assassination is deeply shameful, regardless of their blood relation, and can only be subject to even an attempt at justification by taking as a premise that Stannis' claim to the throne is supreme and overrides any considerations about honor or ethics.

Which, of course, can't be done without defeating the whole point. Unless you are Stannis or Melisandre. Even Davos sees it as the shameful loss of moral standards that it is.

Come to think of it, has Davos realized that Renly suffered a fate similar to Cortnay Penrose's? One wonders if he would remain to faithful to Stannis if he did.

Stannis didn't offer up Edric Storm to a fire the moment he got him, nor did he even consider it until literally all hope of his victory seemed completely lost.

Well, that is faint praise if it is praise at all. It amounts to saying that he doesn't quite always choose the more bloodthirsty path.

Killing Cortnay saved a lot of lives.

In all honesty, that is a puzzling statement. It can only be made to work if one ignores two very significant facts.

1. The whole confrontation between Stannis and Renly could be avoided if only Stannis were not such a proud mary with so little honor.

2. And even taking for granted that Stannis must have Edric Storm and kill Cortnay, honor be damned, it is still true that in going after them Stannis pushed the Tyrells towards an alliance with the Lannisters that otherwise would hardly ever have happened. That ended up causing a huge amount of otherwise avoidable deaths, because it made the battle of the Blackwater that much easier for the Lannisters. In fact, it really looks like it was the decisive factor. Stannis' stolen bannermen suffered greatly for that, and to this day are being pruned by his recklessness.

Renly too was a traitor who was more than willing to see his brother dead on the field of battle the very next day.

Not at all. Renly never swore or promised fealty to Stannis. He may have disappointed Stannis - it depends on how much Stannis hoped for Renly's support - but he never betrayed Stannis, because it takes creating an expectation to be capable of betraying it.

It's a-okay to fight Renly so long as you do it in a bloody melee, outumbered about 10 to 1, with thousands left dead, dying and maimed on the field.

It would be honorable, although it would be also silly and bloody. But then, it was Stannis' choice to cause that situation. He could have gone for King's Landing instead, which is in fact far closer to Dragonstone than Storm's End was. He could have attempted some sort of agreement with Renly, perhaps a truce until after the Lannisters were brought down. But he is just too proud to even consider that.

But sending a shadow assassin to simply kill him and spare both armies is downright heinous.

Precisely, because in so doing he is betraying every basic principle of battle ethics.

After all, he was your brother----the same brother who basically told you and the line of succession to f* off, then spent the night preparing to drown you in your own blood.

So Renly deserved to die just because he refused to take Stannis as his King and realized that Stannis would rather die than submit to him? Really?

I feel so very relieved that I am not your younger brother.

I don't spare many tears for Renly. He was just as big a dick as Robert ever was, he just hid it beneath a flattering personality and smile.

That would still make him far, far more worthy than Stannis.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Stannis' major issue is that he looks too closely at the letter of the law while overlooking its spirit. But I'd say he's getting better at that. I would not want the Clash of Kings Stannis as king — he suffers from the same problems as certain other contenders whom I loathe: thinking that it's owed to him unconditionally. He actually learns and grows and comes to accept that he has to save the realm to win the throne, not the other way around.

While the manner of Renly and Penrose's death is troublesome, I'm not actually opposed to Stannis killing them, although Penrose's demise was sad. But they could have still died in battle and taken hundreds or even thousands of men with them. Other people are considered brilliant tacticians for killing thousands of people before the agreed-upon time (*cough*) but Stannis kills one person in such a way and it's eeeeevil. I have very little sympathy for Renly — he tried to leap-frog both his brother (the rightful king) and his nephews (he made his claim before the incest news got out), for no other reason than ego.

I think of Stannis as Westeros' little engine that could. The odds are against him, he's kind of an unlikeable person (terrific dry wit, though), he's a fraudulent Azor Ahai, he's stuck in a blizzard after already losing the Blackwater. How can you not root for him? :D If only he'd stop burning people ...

[stannis halfelven]

If only he'd stop burning people ...

Stannis is the only dragon I support.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Stannis is the only dragon I support.

Funny you should say that, because Stannis is at least partially a Targaryen. He's more of a Targ than Quentyn and Ben Plumm. So if being a Targ actually does give a person certain magical benefits — I'm skeptical of that but let's consider it — then Stannis would benefit from that windfall as well.

[DurararaFTW]

Stannis was Penrose's liege lord? That sure is news to me. And to him, I'm willing to bet. Why do you think it is so?

He'sa Baratheon and Renly's heir. All tjhe other Stormlands bannermen tried to explain this too Penrose. And he didn't really disagree. Penrose was doing this was Edric's sake. (A far more noble cause then Renly)

There is an understanding that the worthy Lord will inspire or convince soldiers to fight for him, while the less worthy will be less succesfull at that. Other factors being equal, might does indeed make right.

And Stannis' might won.

Killing the enemy commander in such a treacherous way as Stannis did is cheating with very high stakes at play.

Stannis was sleeping at the time. I mean, he's in denial, he's probably aware he had a lot to do with it and he knew enough to send Mel and Davos after Penrose, but he had still gone to sleep that night. I don't think he instructed Mel with the exact hour of Renly's death. Killing him before dawn I have to lay largely at Mel's feet. I mean, he either executes her or accepts the blame for the things that happen in his camp but i don't think this was his initiative.

And let's not forget, it was Stannis that chose to fight Renly at that point in time; Renly would be happy to fight Tywin Lannister instead, and even happier to let Stannis fight in his stead.

As Tyrion explained, Renly was hanging back for good reason he really didn't want to face Tywin or robb in the field until he had too. He would if so pressed, but it is not something he'd be happy to do.

Stannis' choice of assassination is deeply shameful, regardless of their blood relation, and can only be subject to even an attempt at justification by taking as a premise that Stannis' claim to the throne is supreme and overrides any considerations about honor or ethics.

Stannis is already betraying his personal code by not hanging Renly's bannermen. With Penrose at least it was more a question of whether it was Renly's former bannermen victory (in a storm or duel) or Davos and Melisandres (with shadowbaby).

Come to think of it, has Davos realized that Renly suffered a fate similar to Cortnay Penrose's? One wonders if he would remain to faithful to Stannis if he did.

He definitely knows.

Not at all. Renly never swore or promised fealty to Stannis. He may have disappointed Stannis - it depends on how much Stannis hoped for Renly's support - but he never betrayed Stannis, because it takes creating an expectation to be capable of betraying it.

Renly may not believe that Stannis is Robert's heir. But neither does he believe Cersei had anything to do with Roberts or Jon's death. He is a usurper and unlike Robb and Robert he was in no way provoked. He was a traitor to Robert's kingdom. He tried to make himself king by right of conquest, but until he does, and it definitely never happened, the punishment for his actions was death. Just like it was for Robert in Aerys' day who he fondly compares himself too.

It would be honorable, although it would be also silly and bloody. But then, it was Stannis' choice to cause that situation. He could have gone for King's Landing instead, which is in fact far closer to Dragonstone than Storm's End was. He could have attempted some sort of agreement with Renly, perhaps a truce until after the Lannisters were brought down. But he is just too proud to even consider that.

Stannis has about as many men as King's Landing. He might take it, but he'd never be able to hold it. And Renly's uberslow march would suddenly go a lot quicker in the event that happened. And no, no way a truce with Renly had any hope for him. You have his 5000 fight alongside Renly's 100,000 for a while and pretty soon every single one of those guys would change teams. When you are the weakest you don't help thr strongest defeat all his enemies so he has less problems when has to to defeat you. That's horrid strategy.

[DurararaFTW]

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.

Wasn't he already supremely unlucky to not have learned immeadiately learned of the Others as soon as the letters were sent just like every other lord is the seven kingdoms? The real difference here is that he had Davos and Melisandre sitting in his council. But that's not lucky. Davos is there cause Stannis wants him there cause he sees the worth of him being able to express his views and Melisandre is there because Stannis recognises her as more then just a charlatan and because Melisandre saw him in his fires, rather then anyone. Which isn't random either. Stannis is lucky that some smuggler decided to save him at Storm's End. Mostly everything else is the consequence of judgement.

[salt]

Is killing your brother and nephew through black magick considered lawful?

Stannis never harmed his nephew, and we can't know if he ever would have. As for Renly, punishing treason with death is absolutely considered lawful. If Renly had been Ned's brother, Ned would have killed him. The way Stannis did it wasn't honorable, but that has nothing to do with it being lawful.

[salt]

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

But you understand the implications of this, right? If you show any leniency to people eating dead bodies, suddenly a lot more dead bodies are going to start showing up, if you catch my meaning. The punishment had better be crueler than weeks of marching through the woods while starving and freezing, othewise you'e going to have rampant murders and cannibalism. Burning to death is an ugly death, no doubt about it. Getting you head chopped off is ugly too, though faster and less painful, but overall I'm less concerned about the method someone uses for execution, and more concerned about when and why they sentence somone to be executed.

By the way, I don't really get the impression that if Stannis won the throne he would make burning the standard method of execution in the kingdom instead of beheading. In the TWOW chapter he tells the Karstarks that their actions will determine the method of their death, suggesting that burning is saved for greivous crimes.

[LuisDantas]

I don't know who is managing Stannis' PR campaign, but I sure wish he would work for me. People excuse him for the most grievous of failings as if they were minor things.

[LuisDantas]

Stannis' major issue is that he looks too closely at the letter of the law while overlooking its spirit. But I'd say he's getting better at that. I would not want the Clash of Kings Stannis as king — he suffers from the same problems as certain other contenders whom I loathe: thinking that it's owed to him unconditionally. He actually learns and grows and comes to accept that he has to save the realm to win the throne, not the other way around.

While Stannis has been changing, it is not in a redeeming way. Even as his battles grow more justifiable (and they did, a whole lot so) his moral compass grows ever more precarious. Nor is he half as good at being a literalist (not a good thing to be in the first place, but let's run with it) either, or he would have accepted that he has no true legal claim without proof.

While the manner of Renly and Penrose's death is troublesome, I'm not actually opposed to Stannis killing them, although Penrose's demise was sad. But they could have still died in battle and taken hundreds or even thousands of men with them. Other people are considered brilliant tacticians for killing thousands of people before the agreed-upon time (*cough*) but Stannis kills one person in such a way and it's eeeeevil. I have very little sympathy for Renly — he tried to leap-frog both his brother (the rightful king) and his nephews (he made his claim before the incest news got out), for no other reason than ego.

So raising troops under no false pretense is worse than assassination under cover of an agreement? I fear I just can't follow this logic.

I think of Stannis as Westeros' little engine that could. The odds are against him, he's kind of an unlikeable person (terrific dry wit, though), he's a fraudulent Azor Ahai, he's stuck in a blizzard after already losing the Blackwater. How can you not root for him? :D If only he'd stop burning people ...

It is remarkably easy to root against him, even if his current foes are the kind that would make me root for much anyone else.

[LuisDantas]

He'sa Baratheon and Renly's heir. All the other Stormlands bannermen tried to explain this too Penrose. And he didn't really disagree. Penrose was doing this was Edric's sake. (A far more noble cause then Renly)

Cortnay Penrose would rather not give the criminal the prize he hoped to gain by commiting the crime. He understood the matter far better than the Estermonts and others. Or, perhaps, he was more courageous to face the consequences.

I don't know that we can compare the nobility of causes without first establishing that of Renly's. Which, by its turn, is largely unguessable without some background of how well Renly knew Stannis' merits and flaws. I must say that from what we have now learned of Stannis, I back Renly up against him every time.

And Stannis' might won.

Stannis hypocritical treachery won, and that shall forever brand his history.

Stannis was sleeping at the time. I mean, he's in denial, he's probably aware he had a lot to do with it and he knew enough to send Mel and Davos after Penrose, but he had still gone to sleep that night. I don't think he instructed Mel with the exact hour of Renly's death. Killing him before dawn I have to lay largely at Mel's feet. I mean, he either executes her or accepts the blame for the things that happen in his camp but i don't think this was his initiative.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You are proposing that Stannis is not guilty because he had a sudden catastrophic failure at considering a very simple tactical situation. That doesn't really mesh with his known history as a military commander. Surprising as his decisions involving Renly and Storm's End were, they are much better explained by his lack of moral character (which we have witnessed in spades since).

As Tyrion explained, Renly was hanging back for good reason he really didn't want to face Tywin or robb in the field until he had too. He would if so pressed, but it is not something he'd be happy to do.

I completely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that Stannis chose to come for Renly instead of the other way around, and therefore it is Stannis' own fault if that puts him in a situation where he must choose between grievous defeat or shameful assassination.

Stannis is already betraying his personal code by not hanging Renly's bannermen. With Penrose at least it was more a question of whether it was Renly's former bannermen victory (in a storm or duel) or Davos and Melisandres (with shadowbaby).

He definitely knows.

Davos could be a great man if only he healed himself from that dogmatic submission to Stannis' will.

Renly may not believe that Stannis is Robert's heir. But neither does he believe Cersei had anything to do with Roberts or Jon's death. He is a usurper and unlike Robb and Robert he was in no way provoked.

I would say that the prospect of living under the rule of either Cersei, Joffrey or Stannis is plenty enough reason to motivate a rebellion. Renly believed himself a far better ruler than either, and far as we can tell he was indeed quite right.

That is technically an usurpation, and quite unlawful. That does not at all mean that it is wrong.

He was a traitor to Robert's kingdom. He tried to make himself king by right of conquest, but until he does, and it definitely never happened, the punishment for his actions was death. Just like it was for Robert in Aerys' day who he fondly compares himself too.

Thing is, he only gets to be punished if he loses. If he wins he is the new King. Exactly as happened to Robert, so I am not sure why you say he was a traitor to Robert.

Stannis has about as many men as King's Landing. He might take it, but he'd never be able to hold it. And Renly's uberslow march would suddenly go a lot quicker in the event that happened. And no, no way a truce with Renly had any hope for him. You have his 5000 fight alongside Renly's 100,000 for a while and pretty soon every single one of those guys would change teams. When you are the weakest you don't help the strongest defeat all his enemies so he has less problems when has to to defeat you. That's horrid strategy.

It is certainly true that Stannis had to choose between being defeated, being accomodating or being treacherous. I find his choices on the matter rather revealing of his character.

[DurararaFTW]

Cortnay Penrose would rather not give the criminal the prize he hoped to gain by commiting the crime.

If you're talking about Renly's death, Penrose definitely doesn't know anything about all that. Unless you mean Penrose legitimately saw Renly as the rightful king and Stannis an outlaw for not backing his claim from the getgo.

I don't know that we can compare the nobility of causes without first establishing that of Renly's. Which, by its turn, is largely unguessable without some background of how well Renly knew Stannis' merits and flaws. I must say that from what we have now learned of Stannis, I back Renly up against him every time.

I'm not comparing to Renly's cause to Stannis', I'm comparing to saving Edric.

Stannis hypocritical treachery won, and that shall forever brand his history.

A form of of might nevertheless.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You are proposing that Stannis is not guilty because he had a sudden catastrophic failure at considering a very simple tactical situation. That doesn't really mesh with his known history as a military commander. Surprising as his decisions involving Renly and Storm's End were, they are much better explained by his lack of moral character (which we have witnessed in spades since).

I'm not saying he's not guilty. He bears responsibility for whatever Melisandre does. I'm certainly not saying he had a sudden catastrophic failure at blabla. He expected Renly to die. I don't think he had the option of choosing the exact minute of Renly's death while sleeping however. Melisandre choose that.

Stannis knows deepdown that Melisandre broke the treaty and decided he's not gonna do anything about it and just roll with it. That makes him just as guilty. But the initiative here was Melisandre's.

I completely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that Stannis chose to come for Renly instead of the other way around, and therefore it is Stannis' own fault if that puts him in a situation where he must choose between grievous defeat or shameful assassination.

Stannis went there because Melisandre foresaw Renly would die. Again he knows what probably actually happened and is being coward for just playing dumb and not dealing with it, but I do not think that he is just ot and out lying to Davos and how Mel and Stannis were gonna assassinate Renly was something they had planned in detail before hand.

Davos could be a great man if only he healed himself from that dogmatic submission to Stannis' will.

I think Stannis has it in him to be better (seems to be doing so now that he can actually afford it in the North), but Davos does need to see that is not simply that Melisandre that is corrupting him.

I would say that the prospect of living under the rule of either Cersei, Joffrey or Stannis is plenty enough reason to motivate a rebellion. Renly believed himself a far better ruler than either, and far as we can tell he was indeed quite right.

Cersei hadn't realised the full scope of what Cersei was capable of though. But I suppose at the end of the day Renly is a politician like Cersei, Varys and Petyr rather then a soldier like Ned, Robert and Stannis, can't get myself to see him as more trustworthy then the rest.

Thing is, he only gets to be punished if he loses. If he wins he is the new King. Exactly as happened to Robert, so I am not sure why you say he was a traitor to Robert.

Because until he wins, which definitely never happened, it is still the kingdom under Robert's line of succession, rather then Renly's. I can't blame Joffrey or Stannis for feeling they are entitled to defend the claim that handed down the line of succession to them from would be usurpers. I blame them for whho they go about it. And Renly certainly can't raise complaint about the head of his House not being okay with him raising an army to claim the kingdom.

[Free Northman]

So what. So was Rodrick Cassel. And Eddard Stark. And Jon Arryn.

Doesn't make them Azor Ahai.

[lakin1013]

Who would you wish instead?

Of the characters that currently might end up ruling: I must confess that I admire how Dany is freeing the slaves and I admire how Jon is protecting and using the free folk and the wildings. Both of these characters show care for all of their people. I also admire how pragmatic and adaptable Sansa is becoming. All 3 have characteristics of a ruler I would prefer over an unyielding ruler like Stannis.

[LuisDantas]

Durarara, it seems to me that you don't recognize that Renly can legitimaly challenge the succession law. I do.

[salt]

I don't know who is managing Stannis' PR campaign, but I sure wish he would work for me.

That would be GRRM :D. When the author declares a character righteous, there's probably some reason for it.

I'm not pro-Stannis because I think he's such a great guy who always does the right thing and I want to go bike riding with him, I'm po-Stannis because I think he is the contender for the throne with the best chance of seeing Westeros through the long winter.

I look at these contenders not in a vacuum, but in the context of the envionment they would be ruling in. Lets put aside the fact that Renly committed treason, had numerous personal flaws related to his power lust including the gleeful drive to murder his family members and sacrifice thousands of his men for no reason, and would have been lawfully killed by any lord in Westeros has they been in Stannis's place. He played the game of thrones and knew what he was getting into and decided to needlesly fuck up the effort to get the Lannisters out of power, so I don't feel any sympathy considering his final fate. Lets just look at the prospects for King Renly seeing Westeros through the long winter. Its easy for people like Renly to garner suppot when the wine is running, the food is plentiful, and they have an amy more than twice as big any anyone elses. What happens when he has to start saying no? What happens when the food runs out, the wine dries up, and men start freezing to death in their beds? When Dany and/or the Others finally invade, what will Renly have that keeps men willing to fight and die for him? Its hard to imagine Renly acknowledging or being able to stand up to the threat from the North. On the other hand, Stannis is one of the few people who knows about the Others, and even considers it his destiny to fight them:

Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.” Stannis pointed north. “There is where I’ll find the foe that I was born to fight.

Renly relies on peopels love, and if this winter is anything as bad as it looks like its going to be, there is going to be very little love for whoever is in power. Stannis doesn't need love, and never has. If there were 10,000 starving smallfolk and only enough food to keep 1,000 alive, Stannis could make that decision and never look back. People will die and for generations there would be familes that curse the Iron King who sat silent on his throne while they starved- but the realm would survive. And nothing less than the survival of Westeros is what is at stake.

That being said I don't think he will ever take the throne, I like the idea of King Stannis but I've never realistically predicted it. Even if he wins the North, best case scenario he still has 5 of the great houses with no reason to follow him, and 2 passionately opposed to him. Besides, we don't know enough about the Others to start predicting the end of the books, Dany may have to become Queen if her dragons are the only hope.

[DurararaFTW]

Durarara, it seems to me that you don't recognize that Renly can legitimaly challenge the succession law. I do.

He can. Probably wouldn't work. So he did it with swords instead.

BTW Robert or Steffon probably should've taken a page out of Maekars book and sent Stannis to the Citadel, he's at least as uncomprimising as Aemon.