Stannis is a righteous man according to GRRM

[ServantOnIce]

But is it Melisandre who really decided they should fight the Others or go to the Wall? If so, wouldn't that call his righteousness into question?

I think this is something D and D got right on the show in the last episode, "Valar Morghulis" when Mels tells Stannis about the real war, the real battle and they start looking into the flames.

Melisandre again, I think she is a spiritual entity that at one time was human who isn't human and is truly a "agent" of R'hllor to fight The Great Other/White Walker.

I still think she's GRRM equivalent to Gandolf The White or Obi Wan.

[RhaenysBee]

I don't doubt Stannis is a righteous man, I never doubted that. But Renly was right stating that nobody wants Stannis for king. I don't want to see him on the Iron Throne either. He just can't be loved and it's very important for a king to be loved, I think.

The problem is that Stannis actually went off to fight the wildlings, not the Others, even though those are the real enemy. Anyway, the credit for Stannis's northern attack is Melisandre's. Stupid fanatic bitch she is, but at least she is right about the real purpose of the war, the real enemy of Westeros. (No, the Others CAN'T be good, sorry)

All in all, this won't make me like Stannis. He is still stubborn beyond sense, just like Robert and unfit to rule, just like Robert. He might have a good sense of righteousness, see Davos and his knuckle bones, but that's not enough.

[Tetrarch42]

The smallfolk seem to have liked Aerys even though he was a paranoid, pyrophilic, murderous lunatic. People also seemed to have liked Robert even though his drunkeness and incompetence lead to the civil war which is distracting everyone from the threat of Long Winter 2.0. Nobody likes Stannis but he defends the Wall and intends to lift Bolton's control of the North and likely would have kept the realm stable if he were king in Robert's place or Hand in Ned's place.

[salt]

I don't doubt Stannis is a righteous man, I never doubted that. But Renly was right stating that nobody wants Stannis for king. I don't want to see him on the Iron Throne either. He just can't be loved and it's very important for a king to be loved, I think.

The problem is that Stannis actually went off to fight the wildlings, not the Others, even though those are the real enemy. Anyway, the credit for Stannis's northern attack is Melisandre's. Stupid fanatic bitch she is, but at least she is right about the real purpose of the war, the real enemy of Westeros. (No, the Others CAN'T be good, sorry)

All in all, this won't make me like Stannis. He is still stubborn beyond sense, just like Robert and unfit to rule, just like Robert. He might have a good sense of righteousness, see Davos and his knuckle bones, but that's not enough.

Rhaegar was loved, his affair started a war that lead to thousands of deaths, slaughtered children, and the near destruction of his family. Robert was loved, he sank the kingdom into debt, put dangerous and deceptive men into power, and coulnd't see the tightening noose around his neck that lead to complete chaos when he died. Westeros doesn't need a beloved king for the long winter, it needs a capable one. As I mentioned before, whoever is king during the winter is going to oversee famine and war like Westeros hasn't seen in centuries. No matter who they are or what they do, the smallfolk won't love them by the end of it.

As far as Renly being right about no one wanting Stannis to be king, clearly men are willing to follow Stannis. We never saw anyone willing to follow Renly when the going got tough, but Stannis's men have remained loyal though extremely challenging circumstances. Generally, I don't think the smallfolk care who is king- just like Jorah said, the smallfolk genereally care about their farms and families and lives, not the game of thrones. There is this idea that the people of Westeros wanted Renly for king which is completely unfounded. He was popular among the people of King's Landing and his bannermen. Thats it. I don't remember anyone from the North, Riverlands, Vale, Westerlands, Dorne, Iron Islands, or practically any smallfolk calling out for King Renly.

[LuisDantas]

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

That is the point. Such a rebellion is legitimate, as much so as (say) Robb's. Or, in real life, as so many independence militia movements, including that which gave the USA its independence for Great Britain.

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.

I just don't agree. Stannis' mystique greatly surpasses his actual stances.

[LuisDantas]

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

There was, and the interview mentioned in the OP makes it very clear: it is because he is one of the few people aware of the Others. His efforts to keep Westeros free from the Others are, of course, righteous.

That same answer also makes it clear that Stannis has no particular afinity for righteousness, however. Which, in fact, is very clear from the books despite Stannis' own wishes.

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.

Ser Justin Massey, who is in a position to give an informed opinion, seemed to disagree in ADWD. As do I.

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,

Let's, since he clearly did not. He rebelled against Joffrey and Stannis both, but he betrayed no one.

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,

That is a far better and more accurate description of Stannis than of Renly, you know.

and would have been lawfully killed by any lord in Westeros has they been in Stannis's place.

Except that it couldn't happen, almost by definition. Renly's claim was based on his military might and political support. In a sense, he got to write the law when it came to his right to rule. It is no accident that he was killed by treachery instead of in the battlefield.

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,

Stannis did. But I take it that you meant to imply that Renly did? How so?

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 army 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?

Nothing too different than what Stannis would offer, far as I can tell. Except that Renly has shown to be far more politically skilled and would therefore get better results.

Quite frankly, Stannis is likely to better prepare Westeros for the times to come, but for the unenviable reason that he is causing such a bloodshed that the coming famine will be that much less serious.

Its hard to imagine Renly acknowledging or being able to stand up to the threat from the North.

I just don't see why. In fact, rallying forces to fight the Others is a particularly easy challenge to face, from the perspective of any King-to-be. It transcends political boundaries and offers lots of opportunity for would-be new Lords, as we have seen.

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:

Well, guess what. Had he made less egocentric choices, he could be one of considerably less few people who know about the Others. He could be fighting alongside Tyrell forces, if only he did not make such a point of being King.

So no, I don't think that is a point in his favor at all.

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 is a very possible scenario, of course.

But Renly could quite conceivably create some better ones. One I suggested in another thread is engaging in extended trade with Essos, which seems to be quite spared of this Winter and fairly in demand of sellswords that could well come from Westeros.

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]

There was, and the interview mentioned in the OP makes it very clear: it is because he is one of the few people aware of the Others. His efforts to keep Westeros free from the Others are, of course, righteous.

Everyone is aware of the wall being threatened by others and wildlings, the Watch has been sending letters nonstop.

Let's, since he clearly did not. He rebelled against Joffrey and Stannis both, but he betrayed no one.

Rebelling kind of implies you were previously part of their camp.

That is a far better and more accurate description of Stannis than of Renly, you know.

Stannis doesn't have it in him to be gleeful. And Stannis barely had thousands to sacrifice.

Except that it couldn't happen, almost by definition. Renly's claim was based on his military might and political support. In a sense, he got to write the law when it came to his right to rule. It is no accident that he was killed by treachery instead of in the battlefield.

He would have, if he won. He had a the bigger army. Stannis resorted to treachery to deal with him. That doesn't equal him being invincible otherwise. He claimed ithe kingdom through right of conquest, he didn't conquer anything nor was he a loyal servant of anyone's kingdom. He died a traitor.

I just don't see why. In fact, rallying forces to fight the Others is a particularly easy challenge to face, from the perspective of any King-to-be. It transcends political boundaries and offers lots of opportunity for would-be new Lords, as we have seen.

Gotta disagree there. Like with Tyrion Renly can't just take the threat of snarks and grumpkins seriously in full sight of court even if he himself was a believer (that's already a lot to take for granted), especially in a new very fragile peace that would follow destroying the lannisters, the starks and hanging half the established government.

[salt]

Everyone is aware of the wall being threatened by others and wildlings, the Watch has been sending letters nonstop.

Not so sure about that. The watch may have been sending letters, but south of the Wall there is zero acknowledgement outside of Stannis's inner circle and the Night's Watch that the Others are real.

[GreenSeeress]

The smallfolk seem to have liked Aerys even though he was a paranoid, pyrophilic, murderous lunatic. People also seemed to have liked Robert even though his drunkeness and incompetence lead to the civil war which is distracting everyone from the threat of Long Winter 2.0. Nobody likes Stannis but he defends the Wall and intends to lift Bolton's control of the North and likely would have kept the realm stable if he were king in Robert's place or Hand in Ned's place.

I wouldn't say that Robert's drunkeness and incompetence led to the civil war. Robert didn't kill himself with drink, he drank wine that turned out to be poisoned -- at his wife's command -- that led to him be gored by a boar. What led to the civil war is the fact that his ambitious wife was two-timing him with her own brother, and her son, whom she falsely passed off as Robert's heir, is a psychopath.

It's not clear how the small folk thought of Aerys at the end, but clearly his madness led directly to the civil war that resulted in Robert's taking the throne. There is no evidence that Robert would have taken the throne absent Aerys' threat to Ned and Jon Arryn. Robert's challenge wasn't based on the mere idea that he'd be a better king than Aerys -- or even Rhaegar. It was based on the fact that Aerys was a lunatic. So I don't think Renly's claim to kingship -- hey, I'm more popular than the legitimate her! -- is at all comparable to Robert's.

[Tetrarch42]

I wouldn't say that Robert's drunkeness and incompetence led to the civil war. Robert didn't kill himself with drink, he drank wine that turned out to be poisoned -- at his wife's command -- that led to him be gored by a boar. What led to the civil war is the fact that his ambitious wife was two-timing him with her own brother, and her son, whom she falsely passed off as Robert's heir, is a psychopath.

It's not clear how the small folk thought of Aerys at the end, but clearly his madness led directly to the civil war that resulted in Robert's taking the throne. There is no evidence that Robert would have taken the throne absent Aerys' threat to Ned and Jon Arryn. Robert's challenge wasn't based on the mere idea that he'd be a better king than Aerys -- or even Rhaegar. It was based on the fact that Aerys was a lunatic. So I don't think Renly's claim to kingship -- hey, I'm more popular than the legitimate her! -- is at all comparable to Robert's.

Robert didn't die directly as a result of his drinking. He died because his alcoholism compounded with other things lead him to be poisoned. Had he not incured a massive debt, left the ruling of the kingdom to often backstabbing subordinates(Littlefinger, Cersei, Varys, etc.), gone to someone with more political savvy than Eddard, and on and on, the realm wouldn't be embroiled in a brutal civil war.

The nobles were the only ones aware of Aerys' psychopathy, the smallfolk still praise his rule in the books.

[GreenSeeress]

Tetrarch, I agree that Robert was a pretty lousy king, although he remained personally popular as far as I can tell. But his death wasn't the result of all the problems he created. His death was the result of the fact that Cersei knew that her secret -- the fact that Robert's children were really Jaime's children -- was about to come out. I don't get the sense that she would have had Robert killed if she thought Joffrey's inheritance rights remained secure.

[ColdastheStarks]

If Renly Backed Stannis from the Beggining like Ned wanted. Ned wouldn't have needed the gold cloaks it would have been Stormlands Tyrells Tulleys and Starks vs Lannisters. No Contest

[Kate Poem]

Luis Dantas said:

Let's, since he clearly did not. He rebelled against Joffrey and Stannis both, but he betrayed no one.

You know, Luis Dantas, I am very, very sorry but You must be in denial. It is very hard explain You something so simple:

1/ Was Renly in king Robert's Small Council or not? Was king Robert's Small Council something similar to some pub, where anyone could go in and belong? Without oath or promise or...? I think Renly made some oath.

2/ And... Renly did not betray Stannis, but he did betray his "nephew", "son" of his king and oldest brother.

3/ Renly had not any reasons to believe Stannis is liar. Stiff, boring, un-smiling, sewere etc. etc. but not liar. Renly knew Stannis decided support Robert in Robert's rebellion and fought in his name, Renly knew about Stannis's personality.

4/ And... Renly did betray Stannis. The oldest living Baratheon.

5/ WITHOUT ANY REASON BUT HIS WHIMS.

6/ It. Is. Known.

[DurararaFTW]

Not so sure about that. The watch may have been sending letters, but south of the Wall there is zero acknowledgement outside of Stannis's inner circle and the Night's Watch that the Others are real.

More praise to Stannis and his selected inner council for giving them the time of day then.

Tetrarch, I agree that Robert was a pretty lousy king, although he remained personally popular as far as I can tell. But his death wasn't the result of all the problems he created. His death was the result of the fact that Cersei knew that her secret -- the fact that Robert's children were really Jaime's children -- was about to come out. I don't get the sense that she would have had Robert killed if she thought Joffrey's inheritance rights remained secure.

She would him killed eventually, but she wanted to wait until Joffrey was of age. Though Pycelle indicated that he would have killed Robert quite quickly anyway to twart Renly's scheme to make Robert and Margeary get together.

[LuisDantas]

That is a difficult call.

Is Stannis to praise for answering the Night's Watch call? Sure. When push comes to shove, regardless of other considerations, he answered they request in the way that made a decisive difference.

Are other Lords and claimants to blame for disbelieving the very existence of the Others? Again, sure, but to what extent? IIRC, even the Brothers themselves did not quite believe in the existence of the Others until very recently. Besides, Stannis was in a particularly good position to answer their pleas compared to most other liege lords in Westeros.

Rebelling kind of implies you were previously part of their camp.

Not if we are talking about Renly rebelling against the claims of Joffrey and Stannis. In this context, it is a simple refusal to recognize either claim as worthy of support.

It is also, by extension, a refusal to support the customs and laws that would favor his rivals in this particular situation.

Anyone is free to legitimaly disapprove of such rebellion, but it is still not at all equal to betrayal without some sort of promise of support to be betrayed.

You know, Luis Dantas, I am very, very sorry but You must be in denial. It is very hard explain You something so simple:

1/ Was Renly in king Robert's Small Council or not?

Yes, he was, as Master of Laws. It has been well established.

Was king Robert's Small Council something similar to some pub, where anyone could go in and belong? Without oath or promise or...? I think Renly made some oath.

I'm not sure myself. But if he did, it was to Robert, most certainly not to Stannis or Joffrey.

2/ And... Renly did not betray Stannis, but he did betray his "nephew", "son" of his king and oldest brother.

No, he did not. He never promised support to Joffrey, no more than he did to Stannis.

3/ Renly had not any reasons to believe Stannis is liar. Stiff, boring, un-smiling, sewere etc. etc. but not liar. Renly knew Stannis decided support Robert in Robert's rebellion and fought in his name, Renly knew about Stannis's personality.

I'm not 100% certain about that point, either. But it doesn't matter when it comes to establish loyalties.

Renly did not have to believe that Stannis was lying to decide that he would rather rebel against him. And far as we know, he never pretended to believe that Stannis was lying either.

In fact, I doubt he cared much about the legitimacy of either claim, since he was after all challenging both, and not on their own terms.

4/ And... Renly did betray Stannis. The oldest living Baratheon.

I will agree once you show me how or when he promised support to Stannis and then denied it without proper warning.

That is how betrayal is defined, isn't it?

5/ WITHOUT ANY REASON BUT HIS WHIMS.

Trouble is, both giving support or denying it are ultimately equally arbitrary choices. There are risks and advantages to both and Renly had to make some choice and face the consequences.

In that he is no different from any other liege lord, by the way; allegiance is sometimes expected or implied, but it is always legitimate (if often dangerous) to announce its denial.

It is essentially a decision on who to call ally and who to call foe, and therefore it is only sensible to allow people to express it instead of complaining that they should make some sort of automatic stance.

If, say, Lysa Arryn decided to establish the Vale as its own separate Kingdom, then she would also be a rebel but no traitor to both Joffrey or Stannis.

By much the same logic, so Robb too and even Balon were rebels but no betrayers.

Incidentally, I want to point out that Renly is entitled to believe that Stannis would not make as good a king as himself and refuse support on those grounds alone. Call that whims if you feel like it; the distinction is nothing if not unclear. But it is still his clear, undeniable right. The consequences are serious, but he has the choice all the same.

6/ It. Is. Known.

I guess it is.

[Sr.DavosSeaworth]

Eddard is held by most of the realm as a traitor, and he never swore an oath to Joffery. If I led an armed rebellion against the government of my country, and lost, I would be executed as a traitor. I have never sworn an oath of loyalty to my country, but by living in this country, I am held accountable to its laws. Renly knew that he did not have the best claim, but he had a good chance of success. He gambled, and lost. If he had been defeated by Joffery, his fate would not have been anymore pleasant. Stannis was taking the law into his own hands, but still executing the sentence that would have been given if Renly had been defeated by conventional means. If Stannis had defeated Renly by military force, would people still have such an issue with his execution?

[Helgar]

I have to agree with Sr. Davos. The laws of Westeros are clear on the matter of succession. If the King leaves no trueborn child of his own, then ownership passes to the King's oldest surviving brother. Stannis knew Cersei's children were bastards because he had assisted Jon Arryn in finding out the truth. When Robert died, Stannis by right became the rightful king of Westeros, and Renly should either have supported him, or taken no part in the war if he didn't believe the tale/didn't want to help him.

Instead, he chose to claim kinghood for himself, not because it was his right, like Stannis, or because he wanted to disentangle himself from the vile Lannister rule, like Robb Stark - but because he wanted to be king and knew Stannis would have difficulty finding support for his claim. And if Stannis had chosen to oppose him on the battlefield, Renly would have killed him and to hell with Stannis's rights. I think that is despicable and I do not feel the tiniest bit of remorse for Renly's death, even though Stannis did not actually know that Melisandre would kill him (all she had told him was that "she had seen his end in the fires").

Stannis is a just man. The problem is that true justice is bitter, and often the "just" thing to do is very unpleasant and may even seem unjust in itself. This is why honorable people like Ned Stark are remembered more fondly than just people like Stannis, because Ned did know how to compromise and did not always follow the law to the letter, because sometimes injustice can be supported by the law. But nobody supports Stannis, even though by law he is the rightful king, because they don't like him. So Stannis has to resort to underhanded means to right the wrongs. Stannis resents what he is forced to do and he would much rather do things the clean way. Unfortunately, the clean way would avail him nothing and only cost him his life. And since he believes he cannot forsake his claim to the Iron Throne, there is only one option left: use whatever resources you have.

[Winter Wasnt That Bad]

Stannis uses Melisandre as his personal assassin, to kill those people who are too difficult to kill on his own. Is this righteousness? Or is it just to benefit his own agenda?

He adopts Mel's gods as his own and burns the old gods, basically forcing all who follow him to watch and approve of this. Again, is this out of righteousness, or because it simply benefits his wishes to be king of Westeros?

He maims the one person who has complete loyalty to him, and would do virtually anything that he asks. Davos is not only loyal, but also wise and very skilled in those areas in which he has experience. He is one of the very few in this series who does seem to be truly motivated to do good. He lets Stannis chop off his fingers, and sacrifices his sons to Stannis' cause. Who is the righteous one here?

Yet....yet...he did come to the aid of the NW in their time of need. He did let Jon dictate some terms in their relationship. He does have some of the most loyal and amazing followers in Davos and Mel. He has emerged victorious in most of his endeavors (Dragonstone, the Greyjoy rebellion, being the man of the hour when the NW battled the wildlings). He is a contradiction of sorts, which makes him very fascinating.

But ultimately he will be revealed for the person he is now. Someone who once may have been righteous, but who compromised that too many times to gain the power that he craves. When Davos abandons him, and yes he will, all will be lost for Stannis. It will be too late for him to regain what he has already lost.

[Guest]

Stannis was set to execute [Davos] for sending Edric Storm beyond his reach.

It's been a while since I read that part, but I remember thinking that for Stannis to execute Davos was absolutely ridiculous to the point where I couldn't take it seriously (was he playing Mel with that decision, I hope?). Or was Stannis really going to do it?

[chrisdaw]

There's only one clear instance of Stannis compromising his ideals, when he chooses his family over his duty to his King. Edric is a thought crime, Renly was a traitor and Davos was going to murder Mel. His sexual relationship with Mel may also compromise his ideals but remaining faithful to ones wife certainly doesn't appear to be law, and for all we know Selyse may have given it her blessing.