Views on Stannis.

[LuisDantas]

Surely if Robert's conquest was fair, so would be Renly's.

[Ser Barristan BadAss]

If he conqured Stannis host it would be. Therefore, that's treason and Stannis had the right to kill him. Albeit through dubious means.

[LuisDantas]

Renly could never betray Stannis without first giving him some sort of expectation of support, now could he?

Renly rebelled against Stannis' claim, as well as against Joffrey's, but he betrayed no one.

As for conquering Stannis host - well, by some interpretations he did, and that was what drove Stannis to steal them back to him.

Stannis had the full right to kill Renly at the field of combat if it came to that, sure. But then again, he knew full well that he lacked the actual means. Renly knew that as well.

What damns Stannis, and irredeemably so far as I am concerned, is that he faced the choice among

1. Betraying Renly's trust that he would follow basic warfare ethics

2. Facing Renly's troops in battle and certainly facing a disastrous, irreversible defeat

3. Facing the Lannisters in King's Landing, with or without support from Robb and/or Renly

4. Seeking negotiations and accomodations with Renly and perhaps Robb, basically renouncing his claim in recognition of Renly's far greater political and military vialibility

he chose the first.

[SummerGhostofNymeria]

I am not sure that Melisandre really controls Stannis. Stannis listened to her, he listened to his wife. He listened to Davos, too. He listens, and tries to find his way. He does not make that easy for himself. He is better at recognizing good advice than many other characters. Even if that advice comes from unexpected or unwanted directions.

Now Stannis is out of Melisandre's reach (she cannot even see him in her flames), and it seems unlikely that Melisandre will be able to rejoin him anytime soon. Melisandre was only partially successful in controlling Stannis when she had direct access to him. I think her influence is slipping away the longer their separation lasts. Winter and war have good sides, too.

I only agree with this to some extent. Stannis and Davos interaction is different. Yes, he respects Davos, and yes he listens... but it's entirely different when it comes to Melisandre. I think he'd be much better off without her, to be honest. I haven't seen anything yet as to Melisandre's influence dwindling at all. I still feel like she's very much in control.

Now, none of that's to say that I don't like him, because I don't mind Stannis at all. I'm just really hoping that she disappears sometime soon.

[SummerGhostofNymeria]

Stannis had the full right to kill Renly at the field of combat if it came to that, sure. But then again, he knew full well that he lacked the actual means. Renly knew that as well.

What damns Stannis, and irredeemably so far as I am concerned, is that he faced the choice among

1. Betraying Renly's trust that he would follow basic warfare ethics

2. Facing Renly's troops in battle and certainly facing a disastrous, irreversible defeat

3. Facing the Lannisters in King's Landing, with or without support from Robb and/or Renly

4. Seeking negotiations and accomodations with Renly and perhaps Robb, basically renouncing his claim in recognition of Renly's far greater political and military vialibility

he chose the first.

Very good point.

[Ser Barristan BadAss]

Renly could never betray Stannis without first giving him some sort of expectation of support, now could he?

Renly rebelled against Stannis' claim, as well as against Joffrey's, but he betrayed no one.

As for conquering Stannis host - well, by some interpretations he did, and that was what drove Stannis to steal them back to him.

Stannis had the full right to kill Renly at the field of combat if it came to that, sure. But then again, he knew full well that he lacked the actual means. Renly knew that as well.

What damns Stannis, and irredeemably so far as I am concerned, is that he faced the choice among

1. Betraying Renly's trust that he would follow basic warfare ethics

2. Facing Renly's troops in battle and certainly facing a disastrous, irreversible defeat

3. Facing the Lannisters in King's Landing, with or without support from Robb and/or Renly

4. Seeking negotiations and accomodations with Renly and perhaps Robb, basically renouncing his claim in recognition of Renly's far greater political and military vialibility

he chose the first.

It's not betrayal, it certainly is open treason against the rightful King, who is Stannis. The fact is, it was Renly who was power hungry, instead of supporting his brother's rightful claim, he decided on taking to the field against him. Stannis had every right to have him killed.

[SummerGhostofNymeria]

It's not betrayal, it certainly is open treason against the rightful King, who is Stannis. The fact is, it was Renly who was power hungry, instead of supporting his brother's rightful claim, he decided on taking to the field against him. Stannis had every right to have him killed.

That may be so, but at the same time I would say that Renly was "power hungry" to SOME extent, but at the same time he legitimately didn't think that Stannis would not be a good option for the land. Ned supported Stannis' claim because it was the rightful claim. To me it was PART like Renly was "fearful" (for lack of better terminology) of what Stannis would do if given the Iron Throne.

It's just like I think Stannis part power hungry, and part just trying to claim what is rightfully his.

Eh. I generally liked all the Baratheons though... so, maybe I'm being too nice to both of them...

[LuisDantas]

It's not betrayal, it certainly is open treason against the rightful King, who is Stannis. The fact is, it was Renly who was power hungry, instead of supporting his brother's rightful claim, he decided on taking to the field against him. Stannis had every right to have him killed.

Renly has no clear reason to believe on Stannis' over Joffrey, or vice-versa, or even to decide that he cares.

His choice to rebel against both is certainly risky and will earn him no favors from either. But it is still a very legitimate, very honest stance.

Your argument only stands if we take for granted that Stannis should be considered the rightful king (which is an arbitrary call until and unless some sort of proof is presented) and that it is in some meaningful sense wrong of Renly to prefer himself as king (which is by definition arbitrary).

[Rockroi]

So this thread has many forms on these boards so I am not going to regurgitate all of my positive feelings about Stannis here. However, in a nutshell, I like Stannis because he's a just and good leader who listens to wise counsel, has a very clear vision of right and wrong, and has been incredibly resilient to the hardships that have befallen him in his claim for the Iron Throne. Stannis is also incredibly smart, incredibly tough, incredibly capable and sometimes unintentionally hilarious.

I also think Stannis has been treated unfairly by the people in his universe. Some of the reasons given by those who do not support his claim are laughably bad. Most notably that nobody "wants" Stannis as King. When did "want" have anything to do with who gets to be King? I mean, last time I checked the Targs ruled for 300 years and nobody ever got to vote on whether or not Aegon II III, IV or V would take the crown because nobody "wanted" him as King. Renly's claim is so obnoxious because it denies the right of primogeniture- an iron-like vice on the traditions of Westeroes. After all, if Westeros is so laissez-faire about primogeniture, how come bastards are feared worse than the plague?

The fact that more people like Renly so therefore he gets a shot at the Kingdom is insidious because it ignores the rules of law and tradition- the foundational elements of any society. Therefore, when Stannis makes his claim for the Iron Throne its because Stannis is actually the King the moment after Robert died. The fact that certain people do not recognize that fact (and it is a fact, not an opinion) is besides the point. As Stannis himself says "want" has nothing to do with who gets to be King.

(Brief aside: I also like how the producers of Game of Thrones don't like Stannis either. One producer said that Renly would "unquestionably" make a better King than Stannis. Renly- show Renly, that whiny, bitchy kid- is a puppet of a powerful, rich house and being manipulated by that House's ambitious daughter. Gee... if only there was a precedent of a Baratheon male marrying a powerful, rich family and their super-aggressive daughter? THis leaves only one of three explinations for this wide-eyed stupidity:

The producers do not understand Renly

OR

The producers do not understand Stannis

OR

The producers do not understand what the word "unquestionably" means).

Which brings us to the above "choices Stannis had.

1. Betraying Renly's trust that he would follow basic warfare ethics

2. Facing Renly's troops in battle and certainly facing a disastrous, irreversible defeat

3. Facing the Lannisters in King's Landing, with or without support from Robb and/or Renly

4. Seeking negotiations and accomodations (sic) with Renly and perhaps Robb, basically renouncing his claim in recognition of Renly's far greater political and military vialibility (sic)

The list conveniently fails to mention that Renly was a usurper and had- by his own admission -no lawful claim to the Iron Throne (he all but cedes that point to Cat). He is doing the old "Might Makes Right" path. When Tywin or Dany does this people decry them as power-hungry; when Renly does it people just think "Damn fine man. Boggles the mind.

Anyway, without an actual LEGAL claim, Renly is just a barbarian. He's a nice looking, well-mannered barbarian but a barbarian none-the-less. While the wildings would love Renly's moxy, men with laws and rights do not see it that way. And for good reason. Renly is setting a horrid precedent, namley that once a King dies ANYONE can make a claim so long as enough people (and the right people) back him. Renly not only tosses aside hereditary, established monarchy, but he tosses aside rightful lines of primogeniture. Renly is a thug, a vandal and a bully. He's nice about it but that's all he is.

Stannis, by contrast, is right. You can talk and mumble and lie and split hairs and wiggle and shake and try try try to get around it but NOTHING gets around pesky things like "facts." Robert died without trueborn heirs. By law and by custom the Kingdom passes to Stannis. Renly does not like Stannis so he allies himself with Mace Tyrell who's ass is still smarting from the boot-print Stannis put on it during the rebellion so HEY LOOK! We make the "We Don't Like Stannis" Club. And that's great.

But that's NOT a LEGAL claim to a throne! Which begs the question: had Renly won, would Mace think it okay if say, the North and Riverlands in say, 30 years, invaded the South and said to the new King -Mace's grand-son -"Sorry, we do not "want" you to be King so we are going to take it ourselves." That's NOT a tenable system!

So, lets get back to the bunk stated above:

1. Betraying Renly's trust that he would follow basic warfare ethics

Stannis did not betray Renly's trust because Stannis owes Renly no duty given Renly's barbarism and unlawful activity. Stannis' duty is, by law and custom, to the realm. This duty is entrusted to him by way of his position as King of Westeroes. As King, Stannis must enforce the law. Renly- an oath-breaker and a law breaker -must be dealt with. Renly has 100,00 men in the field disrupting the King's peace. By law and custom Stannis is duty-bound to stop it. Finally, there are no "basic warfare ethics." Assassination is perfectly acceptable given Renly's crimes. Renly does not require a trial; he admitted his treachery to Stannis the previous day when Stannis attempted to give Renly a chance to come back to the King;s peace. Hence, there are no "ethical" difficulties in the way Stannis dealt with Renly.

2. Facing Renly's troops in battle and certainly facing a disastrous, irreversible defeat

Stannis owes a duty to his men not to throw their lives away meaninglessly. Stannis acted very keenly and wisely in sparring hundreds of men - both men under his command and under Renly's command -in a costly and untenable war. Again here, the blame falls with the barbarian and traitor Renly. Renly was offered heir to the Iron Throne the previous day and to be welcomed back to the King's peace, but refused so that Renly could continue his revolt against the law.

3. Facing the Lannisters in King's Landing, with or without support from Robb and/or Renly

Stannis eventually did just this.

4. Seeking negotiations and accomodations (sic) with Renly and perhaps Robb, basically renouncing his claim in recognition of Renly's far greater political and military vialibility (sic).

Again, this statement shows complete lack of appreciation for the law. Renly and Robb are usurpers against their lawful King; both Robb and Renly all but admit that Stannis is Robert's rightful and lawful heir (Ned certainly did). Robb's revolt is against the Iron Throne and for political and geographic reasons he took this path. Robb is not the most immediate threat to Stannis (nor was he to Tywin as it turned out) so he can be ignored. As far as working out "accommodations" Stannis cannot do that because, by law, he cannot cede away portions of the Kingdom. he owes all subjects a duty to care for them and their lands.

Further, Stannis tried to get Renly to give up his treachery the previous day during the parlay. Renly instead ignored the warnings and ignored the attempts to come back to the fold. He choose, as a wise man once said, poorly. The negotiations broke down because Renly's arrogance and sense of entitlement.

Also, Renly's questionable "political and military viability" play zero role on who gets to be King. Stannis is King; all recognize this. The fact that Renly REALLY WANTS to be King cannot be a factor in a lawful society. Again, its "Might Makes Right" and that's not how a lawful society operates.

A final word on Robert's claim and how it compares to Renly. People mistake "tradition" with "well we did it once..." Robert became King when nearly half the realm rose up in open rebellion to the lawful King, Aerys Targaryen II. All agreed that Aerys was the rightful King. However, a portion of the population stated that he had to be removed because he was a disastrous leader. Hence, a rebellion was fought against Aerys. Renly's "rebellion" bares no discernible relationship to Robert's. Renly is saying that Robert died without heirs but that everyone should IGNORE the law and make him king over Stannis even though BY LAW Stannis is King. That is not what happened with Aerys. Aerys' older son was slain onm the Trident and his younger son fled. Robert became King because he was the leader of the rebellion (and his claim was best; he had Targ blood in him). That's not what Renly is doing; if he were he would heed the law and support the rightful King.

Again the Targs sat the throne for 300 years; oldest son taking or brother down the line. And so did EVERY SINGLE OTHER HOUSEHOLD in Westeros for thousands of years. That's customary, usual and lawful.

And Renly ignored that. Hence, a lawbreaker, oath-breaker and usurper. Once you go down that road you either win or you die.

Get it, right?

[Doran Martell]

Stannis is a likeable character, though Mel keeps me from liking him to much.

I still want the Ironmen to win.

I'm probably the only one who wants the Ironmen to win.

[LuisDantas]

The list conveniently fails to mention that Renly was a usurper and had- by his own admission -no lawful claim to the Iron Throne (he all but cedes that point to Cat).

I'm not failing to mention that.

I am saying that it lacks importance, mainly because Renly admits that quite openly.

He is doing the old "Might Makes Right" path. When Tywin or Dany does this people decry them as power-hungry; when Renly does it people just think "Damn fine man. Boggles the mind.

Renly isn't perfect, and certainly not unquestionable. But the fact that he has support and lacks Stannis' hypocrisy sure counts for something.

Anyway, without an actual LEGAL claim, Renly is just a barbarian. He's a nice looking, well-mannered barbarian but a barbarian none-the-less. While the wildings would love Renly's moxy, men with laws and rights do not see it that way.

Uh? "Barbarian"? That sure is an odd word to choose.

I beg to ask, do you consider the founding fathers of the USA barbarians?

And for good reason. Renly is setting a horrid precedent, namely that once a King dies ANYONE can make a claim so long as enough people (and the right people) back him.

In which sense is that horrid as opposed to fair and sensible?

Renly not only tosses aside hereditary, established monarchy, but he tosses aside rightful lines of primogeniture. Renly is a thug, a vandal and a bully. He's nice about it but that's all he is.

I fully agree. Except for the parts about a thug, a vandal and... no, I guess he is something of a bully, at least to Stannis.

Not that it matters, mind you.

Stannis, by contrast, is right. You can talk and mumble and lie and split hairs and wiggle and shake and try try try to get around it but NOTHING gets around pesky things like "facts." Robert died without trueborn heirs. By law and by custom the Kingdom passes to Stannis. Renly does not like Stannis so he allies himself with Mace Tyrell who's ass is still smarting from the boot-print Stannis put on it during the rebellion so HEY LOOK! We make the "We Don't Like Stannis" Club. And that's great.

Do you realize that Stannis does NOT have a legal claim to the throne? He would deserve one in a perfectly fair world, I suppose. But without proof or arbitration in his favor, he lacks the support of the law, and his claim is therefore as unlawful as Renly's and more so than Joffrey's or Tommen's.

But that's NOT a LEGAL claim to a throne!

Correct. It is not. And it certainly doesn't particularly have to be, either.

Law is a nice facilitator, but it does not a King make.

Which begs the question: had Renly won, would Mace think it okay if say, the North and Riverlands in say, 30 years, invaded the South and said to the new King -Mace's grand-son -"Sorry, we do not "want" you to be King so we are going to take it ourselves." That's NOT a tenable system!

In a sense, it is not. But it is the only realistic one, if we take as a premise that there must be a King.

So, lets get back to the bunk stated above:

Stannis did not betray Renly's trust because Stannis owes Renly no duty given Renly's barbarism and unlawful activity.

I take it that you are kidding?

Because you surely can't mean that assassination in violation of an agreed upon time of confrontation is justified as a response to Renly's simple abundance of support.

Stannis' duty is, by law and custom, to the realm. This duty is entrusted to him by way of his position as King of Westeros.

Except that Stannis isn't any more of a King than Renly was. His claim is based on the letter of the law instead of on actual support (which makes him a weaker claimant than Renly, btw), and that is the only difference.

Even if he were, he betrayed his duty by putting his personal ambition and glory above his honor and the well-being of Westeros when he chose to confront Renly and assassinate him instead of seeking a more honorable and less destructive agreement.

As King, Stannis must enforce the law.

And, as anyone else, he must also take responsibility for how exactly he goes at it, and avoid hiding behind it at his moral judgement's expense. Also like anyone else, he should nurture the courage to realize when the law goes against justice and must therefore be challenged.

Here, too, Renly (not coincidentally, Robert's Master of Laws) showed superiority over Stannis.

Renly- an oath-breaker and a law breaker -must be dealt with.

Once he actually breaks some oath or law, I suppose that is what should happen, yes.

Renly has 100,000 men in the field disrupting the King's peace.

Or establishing it, depending on who you ask.

By law and custom Stannis is duty-bound to stop it. Finally, there are no "basic warfare ethics." Assassination is perfectly acceptable given Renly's crimes.

Is that supposed to be taken seriously?

Renly does not require a trial; he admitted his treachery to Stannis the previous day when Stannis attempted to give Renly a chance to come back to the King;s peace. Hence, there are no "ethical" difficulties in the way Stannis dealt with Renly.

Eh, sorry... but that is delusional.

[LuisDantas]

Stannis owes a duty to his men not to throw their lives away meaninglessly. Stannis acted very keenly and wisely in sparring hundreds of men - both men under his command and under Renly's command -in a costly and untenable war. Again here, the blame falls with the barbarian and traitor Renly. Renly was offered heir to the Iron Throne the previous day and to be welcomed back to the King's peace, but refused so that Renly could continue his revolt against the law.

Is there anything at all, besides Stannis' pride, forbidding him from actually seeking a peaceful agreement with Renly?

No? Then I don't see how you can seriously make such claims.

Again, this statement shows complete lack of appreciation for the law.

I appreaciate the law just fine, thank you very much. It is a human and all-too-fallible tool, and no self-respecting person should ever put it above his or her own judgement.

Law is an instrument, and to a large measure even a statement of policy. It states what the authorities find acceptable or not, and to what degree, and with which consequences. It is all right to challenge it as long as those who do so understand and accept the consequences.

Law has no more than a barely-above-accidental relationship with justice or virtue. And in all fairness, it was never meant to. People should know better than to expect laws to make moral judgements for them.

Renly and Robb are usurpers against their lawful King;

That being Joffrey. And so is Stannis.

Joffrey certainly does not deserve the Throne by any measure, including the legal one. But the fact remains that Stannis has no more than questionable evidence and unproven claims to try and bend the support of the law to his side. Yet he insists that he is King instead of Joffrey or Tommen. Ergo, he is an usurper.

both Robb and Renly all but admit that Stannis is Robert's rightful and lawful heir (Ned certainly did).

Robb fully admits it (there is a very direct statement in the last few chapters of AGOT), but he is campaigning for the independence of the North regardless. As is his right.

Renly claims not to care, and I don't see any reason to doubt him on that matter.

Robb's revolt is against the Iron Throne and for political and geographic reasons he took this path. Robb is not the most immediate threat to Stannis (nor was he to Tywin as it turned out) so he can be ignored. As far as working out "accommodations" Stannis cannot do that because, by law, he cannot cede away portions of the Kingdom. he owes all subjects a duty to care for them and their lands.

I take it that you forgot what Stannis had to say about the property of the Gift in ASOS?

Because as it turns out, it seems that he would disagree with you about what can or can not be done with portions of the Kingdom, if that speech is to be believed.

Further, Stannis tried to get Renly to give up his treachery the previous day during the parlay.

You mean his claim. Renly used no treachery that we have learned of.

Renly instead ignored the warnings and ignored the attempts to come back to the fold. He choose, as a wise man once said, poorly. The negotiations broke down because Renly's arrogance and sense of entitlement.

Renly can hardly be expected to surrender to Stannis without a good reason, nor to expect to be assassinated by him.

Also, Renly's questionable "political and military viability" play zero role on who gets to be King.

Uh? To lend a phrase, "100 thousand swords can't be wrong".

Maybe it is my age showing, but back in my time leading a huge army sure helped in getting to be King.

Kids these days have no respect.

Stannis is King; all recognize this.

Hardly.

The fact that Renly REALLY WANTS to be King cannot be a factor in a lawful society. Again, its "Might Makes Right" and that's not how a lawful society operates.

Except that it was and it is, repeatedly, both in Westeros and in the real world.

A final word on Robert's claim and how it compares to Renly. People mistake "tradition" with "well we did it once..." Robert became King when nearly half the realm rose up in open rebellion to the lawful King, Aerys Targaryen II. All agreed that Aerys was the rightful King. However, a portion of the population stated that he had to be removed because he was a disastrous leader. Hence, a rebellion was fought against Aerys.

I actually agree.

Renly's "rebellion" bares no discernible relationship to Robert's. Renly is saying that Robert died without heirs but that everyone should IGNORE the law and make him king over Stannis even though BY LAW Stannis is King.

I don't think we have ever learned whether or not Renly believed that Stannis was Robert's heir. I very much doubt he cared anyway.

But of course, that matters little. Particularly once the division among supporters of Joffrey, Stannis and even Robb is already an established fact. Since it is basically impossible to establish who the true heir is, why not leave aside the whole silly notion of "blood makes right" and go for the actual merits and support of the claimants?

That is not what happened with Aerys. Aerys' older son was slain on the Trident and his younger son fled. Robert became King because he was the leader of the rebellion (and his claim was best; he had Targ blood in him).

That was helpful to some degree. I wonder how much. But really, having the support of the High Lords made far more of a difference. It is not like Robert was very Targaryen-like anyway - and would it even make a difference if he were?

That's not what Renly is doing; if he were he would heed the law and support the rightful King.

The situations are not particularly similar, that much is true.

Again the Targs sat the throne for 300 years; oldest son taking or brother down the line. And so did EVERY SINGLE OTHER HOUSEHOLD in Westeros for thousands of years. That's customary, usual and lawful.

And it could only happen at that point in time in Westeros if Stannis chose to deny his own belief that he, not Joffrey, was Robert's lawful heir. Or if instead he produced quality proof for his claim instead of just a statement that Robert's sons couldn't possibly have blond hair.

Ultimately, it was Stannis' decision to allow or at least to reinforce a state of things where the actual inheritor is in dispute and matters simply can not be settled without bloodshed.

And Renly ignored that. Hence, a lawbreaker, oath-breaker and usurper. Once you go down that road you either win or you die.

Get it, right?

He would be a lawbreaker if it were even possible to clearly establish what the law supported, but ok, I will grant you that one.

He would be an oath-breaker if he had broke an oath, I suppose. Did he?

And sure, he was usurping the Iron Throne, or at least he fully meant to. He would most likely either win or die at some point.

That does not in the slightest make Stannis' treachery less shameful.

[ckal]

What's so great about him? He thinks he has some right to the throne because his younger brother conquered it.

Dany thinks she has some right to the throne just because her father is the murdered king, who is a descendent of the first conqueror.

[Rockroi]

What's so great about him? He thinks he has some right to the throne because his younger brother conquered it.

Uh... Robert was Stannis' older brother. And he did not "conquer" Westeros, he won a revolt. Therefore, by law (that's something everyone else just likes to gloss over) and by right Stannis is the lawful King of the realm. Period.

See, either you are a society of laws and values or you are courting chaos. That's the clear line of true demarcation between Stannis on the one hand and Renly on the other; Stannis believes in laws, Renly believes in Might Makes Right. Stannis is following the dictates of government and wise rulers; Renly is a glorified strongman.

Let me put this another way: if the roles were reversed and Stannis was the third child and Renly the middle there is no doubt in my mind that Stannis would support Renly's claim... He may do so bitching about it the whole way, but he would do it.

It's debatable, I think he just feels scorned and wants power.

As Stannis has stated many times and as many others have intimated, want has nothing to do with lines of succession. I think its clear that Stannis feels scorned because, as Cersei readily admits, he was scorned. As far as wanting power, that's not in the equation: whether or not Stannis wants the power is immaterial. The power is his.

Then he killed his other younger brother to get him out of the way--he can play the innocent all he wants you know he had a hand in it.

Well, his younger brother was waging war on the rightful crown, had illegally began a war of usurpation on Stannis' throne and was about to needlessly kill thousands of Westerosi. Renly had to be killed so Stannis did the trick. Again, Renly has no right to the throne.

The only reason he helped the Night's Watch was to get some support in the North.

You have no evidence of this and in fact Stannis' actions beguile your evidence-less claim. Stannis stated many times that he is serving the realm in this mission and all evidence points inexorably in that direction.

He killed half Davos's kids and almost killed Davos, too. Worst of all, he's in league with that crazy witch up to his balls.

Well for starters those men were sworn into his service and were killed by Tyrion/Aerys' wildfire. That was their mission. By your logic Robb Stark murdered those poor Karstarks at Whispering Wood because they died there fighting Lannisters. That mean Robb!!!!!

And it still bares evidence as to what Mel's intentions are. So far, she seems to mean exactly what she says. She seems far less crazy than Roose Bolton, Qyburn, Doran Martel and whoever is advising Dany this week.

[Rockroi]

So continuing my argument. Just to reiterate: either you accept the rule of Law and Stannis is King or you support chaos and "Might Makes Right." That's really it.

I'm not failing to mention that (Renly has no lawful right to the Iron Throne); I am saying that it lacks importance, mainly because Renly admits that quite openly.

From your own words you strike a ringing indictment of your own argument. You, in effect, say that Renly does not acre about the law. This is disastrous for your line of thought. Because once you say the LAW does not matter, and that Renly’s claim is lawless then how the HELL do you expect that King to enforce the laws? He’s lawless, after all.

I beg to ask, do you consider the founding fathers of the USA barbarians?

No need to beg. Absolutely not. They were traitors to the British Crown, no doubt but they were overthrowing a distant and no longer applicable government. The Founding Fathers wanted a representative democracy free from the unrepresentative status the colonies had at the start of the revolution. Renly never states this. Renly is at war to be King. The American Founding Fathers never wanted to overthrow the King; theyw anted representation and could not get this from the Crown. If anything, the founding fathers bare a greater resemblance to Robb than to Renly (but for reasons stated later that does not help Robb much either).

In which sense is that (once a King dies ANYONE can make a claim so long as enough people (and the right people) back him) horrid as opposed to fair and sensible?

Wow. I really have to answer why having constant warring among seven kingdoms is NOT “fair and sensible?” I mean what part of “Lawless Disputed Kingdom in a Near Constant State of Warfare” do I need to say is bad? Your system would require a new war after every King dies. Holy shit, I think that may be the worst of all possible systems.

Do you realize that Stannis does NOT have a legal claim to the throne? He would deserve one in a perfectly fair world, I suppose.

See, wow. You contradict yourself in the space of two sentences. Well played. Stannis DOES have a LEGAL claim to the throne. You say so yourself when you imply that in a “perfect” world he would definitely have one.

But without proof or arbitration in his favor, he lacks the support of the law,

You do not understand the word “law.” Without some sort of decision or evidence Stannis ONLY lacks proof, not LEGAL right. Law is the law. Either Stannis is the King or he is not. NOBODY – save the Lannisters -is saying to Stannis “The reason you cannot be King is that we do not believe you.” No, what they are saying is “We don’t LIKE you so you cannot be King.” That’s NOT the law. That’s popularity.

and his claim is therefore as unlawful as Renly's and more so than Joffrey's or Tommen's.

/BOGGLE?? His claim is lawful regardless of whether or not he can prove it. The law is the law.

Correct. It is not. And it certainly doesn't particularly have to be, either.

And again, you make my point for me. YOU are saying that “Might Makes Right.” And that’s fine except that no system can continue like that because it will always be up to the more mighty and constant warfare. Hence, why Renly’s claim is not just unlawful but disastrous.

[Rockroi]

So apparently there is such a thing as "allowable quotable blocks of text." Who knew?

Because you surely can't mean that assassination in violation of an agreed upon time of confrontation is justified as a response to Renly's simple abundance of support.

I missed the rule that says there was an “Agreed Upon Time of Confrontation.” Was that in Sun Tzu’s "Art of War and Scheduling”? Seriously, do you know how ludicrous that sounds? Is Robb a war criminal because he did not say “Excuse me, people at Whispering Wood… Uh… I plan on attacking now.” Again, I love the double standards – when Robb or Dany does something its perfectly fine and very clever; when Stannis does something he’s evil. Makes sense.

Except that Stannis isn't any more of a King than Renly was. His claim is based on the letter of the law instead of on actual support (which makes him a weaker claimant than Renly, btw), and that is the only difference.

That and Stannis is actually the King, by rights. Stannis is Robert’s oldest sibling. Again, either you follow the law or you are lawless.

Even if he were, he betrayed his duty by putting his personal ambition and glory above his honor and the well-being of Westeros when he chose to confront Renly and assassinate him instead of seeking a more honorable and less destructive agreement.

Nope. He does not have a “personal ambition.” He is the King. He has to enforce the law now. Look, if Stannis were some guy like, say, Renly than yes he’s a usurper and is attaching personal ambition to this. But Stannis does not have that luxury; he has the DUTY to fulfill the law and take up the throne. That does not make Stannis a good guy or nice or kind to animals or a nifty person to talk to. But it makes his cause far more honorable and true than Renly who just wanted to play King.

And, as anyone else, he must also take responsibility for how exactly he goes at it, and avoid hiding behind it at his moral judgement's expense. Also like anyone else, he should nurture the courage to realize when the law goes against justice and must therefore be challenged.

In no way did Stannis fail to do any of this. Moving on.

Here, too, Renly (not coincidentally, Robert's Master of Laws) showed superiority over Stannis.

Yeah, that Robert boy- he had such a keen eye for enforcing the law. And Renly wow (you know this is a terrible argument, right?).

Is there anything at all, besides Stannis' pride, forbidding him from actually seeking a peaceful agreement with Renly?

He did seek such a peace and Renly refused to accept the rule of law. So, yeah don’t know why you keep asking me questions that the books clearly answer.

It is all right to challenge (the law) as long as those who do so understand and accept the consequences.

Right, like getting killed in your tent when you usurp the law and your brother’s rightful title. Those consequences are that you may end up dead because you are a lawless traitor. And that’s what happened to Renly. I’m glad we had this chat.

Joffrey certainly does not deserve the Throne by any measure, including the legal one. But the fact remains that Stannis has no more than questionable evidence and unproven claims to try and bend the support of the law to his side. Yet he insists that he is King instead of Joffrey or Tommen. Ergo, he is an usurper.

Again, you continue to conflate “proof” with “truth.” And that’s your problem. Nobody in Westeros is asking Stannis to prove his claim and that’s because everyone knows that its probably true (Kevan, Cersei, Jaime, Pyrcell, etc etc etc) all know it. They refuse to acquiesce. Stannis has the truth. And even RENLY knows that. He just does not want to abide by the rule of law. Hence, Stannis is right, Renly wrong. Stannis has the law, Renly just ahs more power.

Or he did until Stannis killed him.

Robb fully admits it (there is a very direct statement in the last few chapters of AGOT), but he is campaigning for the independence of the North regardless. As is his right.

Here you confuse “right” with “power” (you confuse a lot of ideas and concepts). Robb has the “power” to rebel but not the right. In 1776 (see? Thought I forgot, huh?) the Founding Fathers also did not have the RIGHT to overthrow the King under the KING’S laws, so they made laws of their own and said “We are now our own government.” Robb is not doing anything like that; he is instead saying “You are a bad King and I do not want to be ruled by you, so I am going away.” The problem is that UNLIKE the colonies in 1776, there is ANOTHER King out there (Stannis) who Robb could declare for and say “Look, that guy is probably not as bad. My dad liked him so we should do as my father willed it and support Stannis.” But Robb is young, wants more than he can handle so he went on his own. Again, he has the POWER to do that, not the RIGHT.

Renly claims not to care, and I don't see any reason to doubt him on that matter.

Again, from your own lips you condemn your own argument when you say that Renly does not care about the law. As King his job is to enforce the law.

You mean his claim. Renly used no treachery that we have learned of.

The treachery is declaring that he has a superior right to Stannis. That is treachery. Again, you are confused.

Renly can hardly be expected to surrender to Stannis without a good reason, nor to expect to be assassinated by him.

The "good reason" you allude to would be “the law.” Again you seem to hate to address that issue.

Uh? To lend a phrase, "100 thousand swords can't be wrong".

Again, your own words show how Renly’s claim is simply “Might Makes Right” and not “Rule of Law.” You say so yourself then try to pretend its subtle.

Except that it was and it is, repeatedly, both in Westeros and in the real world.

By that logic no American President should ever give up power because at the time of any “Election” he has the Army (as commander in chief). As Mubarak is Might Makes Right. You either live ina society of laws or you live in a society of strong men. You choose.

So, I get it- you said in one of your original posts that you hate Stannis with a passion and it shows in your argument. I get that- you don’t like Stannis because he’s mean and probably not kind to kittens and says bad things about people. You like Renly because he looks nice, acts nice and probably is nice to pets and old ladies. Got it.

But you have to put aside your prejudices and look at the issues. Stannis is Robert’s surviving brother, Renly would come after. Nobody disputes this. But Renly rides up and says “I just sold myself to the Tyrells!!!! All hail King ME! And that’s not lawful and its not honorable. Its selfish and spoiled. So either you take Renly and say “He can do that” or you say “You know what? I expect better from my King. I expect him to be lawful and true. Like Stannis.” But Stannis is mean- he hangs out wioth a girl who has cooties and says bad thinsg so no. He can’t be a good King.

But to the law? To the law he’s King.

[LuisDantas]

Rockoi, we are stating the same things over and over. I would rather not, so in a nutshell:

1. Law isn't and can't reasonably be taken as if it were supreme, or even better than human judgement. Unless, I suppose, you somehow believe it has been granted upon mankind by some sort of higher power, which I don't.

2. Regardless, Stannis can't claim to have lawful support, because the matter is either confused (due to the question of Joffrey's and Tommen's filiation) or instead supports the Lannister's claim instead (since there is neither proof, nor arbitration, nor formal judgement on the matter standing). Despite a high chance that his claims about blood turn out to be true, Stannis is engaging in glorified gossip, not lawful claiming.

[HouseHarrison]

Stannis is GRRM's take on a common view among peasants IRL: their king was noble and just but being corrupted by members of their court. Usually said member(s) were accused of being foreign or non-Christian. Melisandre fits both of these categories as well.

While GRRM validates Melisandre a bit because many of her magic tricks actually work, when Stannis is rid of her he'll return to the glory he is known for.

[LuisDantas]

Or it will become more evident that his failings are his own, perhaps.

Stannis, after all, had lots of opportunities to take other paths instead of those favored by Melisandre. He even did take them on occasion.

[SummerGhostofNymeria]

Stannis is GRRM's take on a common view among peasants IRL: their king was noble and just but being corrupted by members of their court. Usually said member(s) were accused of being foreign or non-Christian. Melisandre fits both of these categories as well.

While GRRM validates Melisandre a bit because many of her magic tricks actually work, when Stannis is rid of her he'll return to the glory he is known for.

That is true, the Melisandre bit. I'm not completely confident that Stannis can handle it alone as I feel that Melisandre's had a HEAVY hand in his success thus far. However, who knows what could happen IF he ever gets rid of her.

Or it will become more evident that his failings are his own, perhaps.

Stannis, after all, had lots of opportunities to take other paths instead of those favored by Melisandre. He even did take them on occasion.

I agree with this too. That's my usual argument for being so conflicted in regards to how I want to feel about Stannis. He's gone her route so often, and done... in essence, everything that she's wanted of him that I'm uncertain as to what HE would have done without the assitance of her and her magic.