Views on Stannis.

[Raerin]

Rockroi, I must say I really enjoy reading your posts. Your view on Stannis and his actions is truly valuable, as well as your ability to express thoughts.

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.

LuisDantas, are you perhaps familiar with the Roman sentence 'dura lex sed lex'? It means that law is not something that can be taken lightly. You, as a member of the human society, cannot just choose which part you like and which you may neglect because you do not like its consequences. Law is basically regarded as something above people, because that is how it has been constructed and how it functions. You take it as a whole or you deny it, and in the second case you put yourself beyond the society and become an outlaw. There is no room to make excuses. It is the authority of law that force you and me to acknowledge sentence of a court. Based on that authority, a judge has the right to decide about one's life or death. We, as a human civilization, agreed to obey rules and regulations in order to prevent chaos and anarchy. Thanks to that we do not have to fear for our lives, because where there is no law, rule of might appears. It is law that determines continuity and stability of the human society. It is our common agreement and convention for the sake of us all.

Surely, some rules are unjust or broken. But if you want to question authority of law, you need really strong basis for doing that. An individual has no such power. This is the reason why in medieval England Magna Charta Libertatum has been declared. This is why today the most important legislative act in the European Union is Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is why United Nations has been founded. They all function as supreme authorities that allow us to correct some situations. In Westeros, just like in our world centuries ago, it is tradition that plays the role of the highest authority. The limitations set by tradition were even stronger than modern rules, because they influenced almost every part of everybody's life.

Besides, if you want to question the validity of law, I would like to remind you that it was the main line of defense among all tyrants and dictators who were put before the court. So be careful whom you ally with.

Speaking of Renly, he was a traitor, rebel and kinslayer, because, respectively, he failed in doing his duty to his greater brother and head of the House, he violated the traditional, acknowledged rules, striving for the crown, and he first raised his hand against his brother. All those things put Renly beyond the law. Stannis as a king just performed his duty to punish such a person, and he did it successfully.

[LuisDantas]

Raerin, the law is not to be taken lightly, or it wouldn't be law.

Nor should it be taken blindly, either.

Besides, if you want to question the validity of law, I would like to remind you that it was the main line of defense among all tyrants and dictators who were put before the court. So be careful whom you ally with.

Do you realize that most tyrants and dictators aren't brought before courts because they decide which laws and courts are valid?

Speaking of Renly, he was a traitor, rebel and kinslayer, because, respectively, he failed in doing his duty to his greater brother and head of the House,

He did not fail to do it. He denied its existence outright. One can disagree with him, but not with anything approaching objectivity; the closest would be political awareness - but pleasing Stannis was simply not important to Renly.

he violated the traditional, acknowledged rules, striving for the crown,

He was indeed a rebel.

and he first raised his hand against his brother.

To mock him with a peach. Does that make him a kinslayer? Really? My sister probably has a lot to tell me about then.

All those things put Renly beyond the law.

Everyone is essentially beyond the law; law is a very limited, blind and poor political tool.

Stannis as a king just performed his duty to punish such a person, and he did it successfully.

Uh, no. Not at all.

He was a fellow/rival claimant, not a true king.

He had no "duty", only ambitions.

And he did not "punish" Renly, he slew him treacherously.

[Raerin]

Raerin, the law is not to be taken lightly, or it wouldn't be law.

Nor should it be taken blindly, either.

I agree, that is why we have an institution of courts. Alternatively, it were kings, tribe chiefs, etc. who decided how to interpret the law. It is not perfect, but it worked for thousands of years. If anybody decided about the law, there would be no society but anarchy which leads to the rule of might.

Do you realize that most tyrants and dictators aren't brought before courts because they decide which laws and courts are valid?

That is true, but sometimes it was possible to bring them to justice. This is the reason why courts need to be independent and objective, and why some legal instances have been created, like those that I mentioned before. Those rulers used might to influence the judgment and the legislation.

He did not fail to do it. He denied its existence outright. One can disagree with him, but not with anything approaching objectivity; the closest would be political awareness - but pleasing Stannis was simply not important to Renly.

Then he denied rules and regulations that are very foundations of the Westerosi feudal society. The houses existed not without reason: their structure imitated the order of the realm. The head had privileges and responsibilities toward the rest of the family just like the king toward his subjects. As long as it functioned, members of the house were obliged to support the decisions of the head. It was not conditional, there was no room for 'if', 'but', etc. For the further reference I recommend you the books. There you can find plenty of examples.

Stannis understood those rules well, that is why he has never questioned Robert's decisions.

Objectivity? awareness? I am sorry, but this line of defense sounds like hypocrisy. I am sure that Walder Frey or Roose Bolton had plenty of political awareness too.

To mock him with a peach. Does that make him a kinslayer? Really? My sister probably has a lot to tell me about then.

Mocking with a peach? No. Preparing army and claiming for the throne, making jokes about killing his brother in the eve of the battle? Yes.

Renly was fourth in line, nothing could change that but Stannis' death. He started the actions that must have led to the fratricide. He was personally responsible for the situation. His attitude showed that he did not even care about his brother's death. I have a brother and I find Renly's jokes, while he was talking to Catelyn, truly revolting. Read the chapter, everything is there.

Everyone is essentially beyond the law; law is a very limited, blind and poor political tool.

Wrong. Have you read what I wrote earlier? Do it again please. I believe I argued enough that thanks to the law we may today debate peacefully instead of killing each other.

Uh, no. Not at all.

He was a fellow/rival claimant, not a true king.

He had no "duty", only ambitions.

And he did not "punish" Renly, he slew him treacherously.

We, as readers, know that Stannis is a king by rights. Stannis knew it as well. The rules of succession are unquestionable. Joffrey and Tommen were born from the incest, so next in line is Stannis.

If you want to see only ambitions, just ignoring some parts of the books where it has been literally said that it was a matter of duty, it is your choice.

Your last sentence just killed me. You see, when you are after a criminal, you must use the tools you have. There is no 'treacherous slaying' when you execute the sentence of death. It was just one of the ways to get rid of the traitor. For instance, Stannis could have banished Renly, making him a wolfshead. Each peasant then would have had the right to slay the one with impunity. In our world people were banished and taken away all the rights for lesser crimes than what Renly did.

I hope I will see more reasonable and debatable arguments validating your point of view please. For now these are mostly the assumptions based on your subjective, personal feeling.

[LuisDantas]

Nope. As a reader, I know that Stannis would have the support of the law for his claim if he could prove his case.

He does deserve that support, minimal in significance as it actually is, but he lacks it all the same.

As a human being, I happen to also know that law does not make a society virtuous or proper in any way.

There are those who believe that the foundation of some societies is the law. That is just a big mistake, however.

Mocking with a peach? No. Preparing army and claiming for the throne, making jokes about killing his brother in the eve of the battle? Yes.

Renly was fourth in line, nothing could change that but Stannis' death. He started the actions that

must

have led to the fratricide. He was personally responsible for the situation. His attitude showed that he did not even care about his brother's death. I have a brother and I find Renly's jokes, while he was talking to Catelyn, truly revolting. Read the chapter, everything is there.

Do you really think Renly would refuse to spare Stannis life in exchange for giving up his claim? Because unless you do, this talk of Renly as a kinslayer is simple nonsense.

I don't think I can - or want to bother trying to - find more convincing arguments to destroy this law worship stance of yours.

[Crown]

He grew on me over the course of the books, and became my one of my favourite characters. I love the guy!

[Pope Killdragon]

I don't understand why anyone is still arguing. Stannis is the king. That's not debatable. The fact that he would take the shame of being perceived as a kinslayer over sacrificing thousands of lives when he knew there was a better way makes him that much more a greater king in my eyes. Ned Stark sacrificed his pride and honor to save his house. How is this much different?

[Raerin]

Nope. As a reader, I know that Stannis would have the support of the law for his claim if he could prove his case.

He does deserve that support, minimal in significance as it actually is, but he lacks it all the same.

As a human being, I happen to also know that law does not make a society virtuous or proper in any way.

There are those who believe that the foundation of some societies is the law. That is just a big mistake, however.

Do you really think Renly would refuse to spare Stannis life in exchange for giving up his claim? Because unless you do, this talk of Renly as a kinslayer is simple nonsense.

I don't think I can - or want to bother trying to - find more convincing arguments to destroy this law worship stance of yours.

1. the letter of law is clear: the next person in the line of succession becomes a king. Period. That is how it works. If we know that law, as readers, we can say that Stannis is a true king. These were Westerosi that needed the proof because of the Lannisters' scheming which made Edric Storm so important to Stannis. For Ned Stark the situation was quite clear and he knew the truth.

If you do not appreciate law, that is your choice. But I wonder why you consider that belief being a mistake. And what do you propose in exchange?

2. Stannis would be spared for sure. But it is not allowed to negotiate with terrorists. Why should Stannis give up his claim? Renly is a rebel. A criminal, according to the law. He should be executed, not granted with a kingdom.

[Lord Varys]

It's remarkable that within the series only fools like Loras or Brienne actually defend or care for Renly (and Brienne only because she saw something in Renly he never was). Renly was a traitor. Any elder brother in other noble family in Westeros would have dealt with him severely. And Stannis was a member of the royal family. Had he backed down, had he bent the knee to his baby brother, he could have cut off his balls as well. No one would have respected him afterwards (nor could Renly have sit securely on the Iron Throne while Stannis was still alive, even if he bent the knee - Aemon Targaryen had to go to the Wall to prevent to become an obstacle to Aegon V, and Aemon and Egg loved each other!).

A bunch of traitorous bastards do not legitimate treason. Perhaps if he had won the war, but he did not. He drowned in his own blood, and Stannis was actually way to kind to him. He tried to reason with him, he offered him to make him a part of his court and his heir, he gave him time to surrender. You can try to usurp your brother's place, but if you do, you can't complain if he has you killed.

The way it was done was also not that bad. It was a quick, clean assassination. He did not die in battle, nobody defiled his body. The very fact that Stannis is denial afterwards actually shows his emotion and sadness about the whole thing. He loved his brother. And he wants to believe that he did not kill him. Although he has to know about it - not just later, when he sends Davos to kill Ser Cortnay, but early on when he decides to go to Storm's End. Stannis is not as stupid to just sit idly by and believe good old Mel when she says 'Go to Storm's End. If you do that, your brother will die.'

Loyalty to your family is the core virtue among Westerosi nobility. Your family might be a bunch of bastards, but you stick to them, you help them, you defend them. That's the whole point in ACoK. Tyrion Lannister has every reason to betray his father, his sister, and his royal nephew, but he sticks to them, and helps them through the crisis.

[Zar Lannister]

Stannis' sence of justice supersedes any feelings he may have. I'd say this is almost his virtue, his ability to discern the doings of men and to understand that the process is not some sort of cleanup, since the good deed is rewarded while the evil deed is sanctioned.

Sometimes however, I feel his behavior almost makes him a soulless automaton. And it is implied when people comment on how him sleeping with Selyse for example is "doing his duty".

He's a man bound by what responsibilities he thinks have been bestowed upon him, and will not flinch from it. It is why he's a better pick of a ruler for Westeros than most of the contenders.

[LuisDantas]

You guys keep looking at Stannis and seeing Randyll Tarly. Amazing.

[Rockroi]

You guys keep looking at Stannis and seeing Randyll Tarly. Amazing.

Nah. Stannis is no Loyalist Punk.

Look, lets forget this ENTIRE argument (that people seem to agree with me on); throw out the law (egad!!); throw out the power struggle; throw out the ideas of fighting and joining forces. Throw it all away and just get back to this one question:

If the roles were reversed; if Stannis were the third child and Renly the second is there ANY doubt at all that Stannis would support Renly's claim (as he had Robert's)?

To me that is the absolute killer to the argument that Stannis "wants" power or is power hungry or a usurper. It all goes; there is no doubt in my mind that had Stannis been the 3rd born he would have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Renly and made his brother King. He would have been miserable the whole time and probably assassinated by the Tyrell's eventually (Mace Tyrell cannot live in a universe where Stannis has any authority) but he would have done it. Just like he had- with distinction, honor and pride- when Robert went all Revolution Crazy.

And so one must beg the question- if Renly would not do what Stannis would clearly have done, than how can Renly be "the better man?" Its utterly preposterous.

[Lord Varys]

If Stannis had been the third brother (and known about the incest, as he does in the books), he would have put the crown on Renly's head with his own hands!

And I'm sure Mace Tyrell would not have tried to have him killed. There is some resentment between him and Stannis, but I guess Stannis is the man who dislikes Mace much more than the other way around. And as a third brother Stannis would have had little authority, especially if he had the same personality he has as second brother.

Mace had reason to fear that he would never become a power behind the throne under King Stannis, that's one of the reasons why he would have never backed him. But the main reason why the Tyrells did end up choosing Joffrey instead of Stannis after Renly's death was Loras. He was devastated by Renly's death, and made the initial decision to leave for Bitterbridge and not declare for Stannis.

And by the way, there are worlds between Stannis Baratheon and Randyll Tarly. Stannis does not move his lips while reading. Tarly does ;-).

As to Stannis's 'sense of duty' when Selyse is concerned:

The man is uncomfortable around most women. And he does not like Selyse, nor is he attracted to her physically in any way. Sharing the bed with her would be rather difficult in such a situation for any man I guess. Arranged marriages often have this effect.

[KhaleesiDany]

LuisDantas, are you perhaps familiar with the Roman sentence 'dura lex sed lex'? It means that law is not something that can be taken lightly. You, as a member of the human society, cannot just choose which part you like and which you may neglect because you do not like its consequences. Law is basically regarded as something above people, because that is how it has been constructed and how it functions. You take it as a whole or you deny it, and in the second case you put yourself beyond the society and become an outlaw. There is no room to make excuses. It is the authority of law that force you and me to acknowledge sentence of a court. Based on that authority, a judge has the right to decide about one's life or death. We, as a human civilization, agreed to obey rules and regulations in order to prevent chaos and anarchy. Thanks to that we do not have to fear for our lives, because where there is no law, rule of might appears. It is law that determines continuity and stability of the human society. It is our common agreement and convention for the sake of us all.

Surely, some rules are unjust or broken. But if you want to question authority of law, you need really strong basis for doing that. An individual has no such power. This is the reason why in medieval England Magna Charta Libertatum has been declared. This is why today the most important legislative act in the European Union is Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is why United Nations has been founded. They all function as supreme authorities that allow us to correct some situations. In Westeros, just like in our world centuries ago, it is tradition that plays the role of the highest authority. The limitations set by tradition were even stronger than modern rules, because they influenced almost every part of everybody's life.

Besides, if you want to question the validity of law, I would like to remind you that it was the main line of defense among all tyrants and dictators who were put before the court. So be careful whom you ally with.

Speaking of Renly, he was a traitor, rebel and kinslayer, because, respectively, he failed in doing his duty to his greater brother and head of the House, he violated the traditional, acknowledged rules, striving for the crown, and he first raised his hand against his brother. All those things put Renly beyond the law. Stannis as a king just performed his duty to punish such a person, and he did it successfully.

very long posts earlier in the topic and im sure everything that's been said has been. (should compile the arguments into one of those "ASOIAF and philosophy" books, honestly.) I want to point out that the example you use here for supporting stannis is exactly why I think he is wrong, dishonorable, etc. Then maybe you will understand why I can't stand behind his morals. At this point our two camps have to admit we disagree. This is what wars are fought over, you know, each party convinced they are right because of different interpretation in the law.

So here is why I think Stannis is a douche bag of dishonor:

We modern people don't really have an understanding of ethical warfare, but warfare used to be a highly ritualized affair. For Westeros and our Medieval history, this is where all the knights and codes of honor and chivalry come in. Knights with all their ribbons and trappings were the only ones allowed to fight and carry weapons, hopefully because they were the ones who understood what it meant to walk around carrying a sword. People had the capability of going out and wreaking havoc so it was necessary to have some social constructions to keep them in line. Whether or not they were followed is a different matter--this is why Gregor Clegane is so scary and why we have terms like "war crime." yet I hear naive people, unfamiliar with the idea of honor in battle, saying "how can there be war crimes? you win or you die."

People start to think more and more like this, and you have issues like the peasant conscription in the Middle ages. Instead of knights from the noble class only being allowed to fight, use people as fodder. In our own history, warfare moved away from a ritualized affair and more towards total warfare--bombing cities, trenches, poisoning water supply, Blitzkrieg, and the reactionary techniques like Guerilla warfare and suicide bombing. You get to where we are now which is a complete disregard for human life.

What Stannis did by murdering Renly was go outside the ritualized concept of war--in essence, HE is the outlaw. By using Melisandre's power to murder Renly, he put himself above the ethical considerations of warfare. He denied the "law", the social constructions of warfare that are in place to keep society functioning. If you don't think so, consider what would have happened if Renly played by Stannis's rules--he would have just ambushed him during their pre-war meeting in the forest, and killed him. "Surprise, my army is six times greater than yours" and your favorite character would be dead.

But Renly is more honorable than Stannis, so he wouldn't do that. He would not imagine going agaisnt the fundamental structure of society in such a new way. They are playing a new game now. By stannis's means, people will soon be assassinating each other left and right because, hey why not? When others gain the capability/technology of winning so dishonorably, the society quickly descends into chaos.

That brings me to the second thing you brought up--that some laws are unjust, and need to be changed. You can do that if you have the support of enough people. The war of the five kings was a reflection of the utter chaos the continent was in after Robert died. You start to hear more of the horrors of a society lacking structure. Renly saw this chaos, so did Robb, so did Stannis, and they all declared themselves King to try and remedy it and save the land. (The ironborn just want to reap, steal.) But an individual has no such power. He needs the support of many people behind him. The people have to want the change as much as the new ruler. who had that support? Renly and Robb, in the south and north respectively. Renly's people were willing to support him because it was he who held court at every crossroads for them and brought some stability to their lives. Renly's army was bigger because he was the better king, even if he wasn't the rightful king. Therefore it is Stannis who raises his hand against his brother. Kinslayer. And at what cost? The continued destabilization of his entire kingdom.

We can go around in circles all day. I think what it boils down to is what you think is more important--what you deserve by birth, or what you deserve by your actions. Both camps are willing to go completely above the law to get it. Which law is worse to break? The one that keeps society free from wanton violence? Or the traditional one that many people are wiling and ready to change?

I won't abide it. stannis won and is definitely smart, but I am offended by his concept of justice.

[Ser Barristan BadAss]

Justice and honor has always been something that has been muddled. For instance, after a battle, King Edward IV would order all the common soldiers to be spared, but the Knights and gentry were to be killed. Other Kings would always put the common soldiers to death and ransom the Knights and gentry. War has never been chivalrous, it's a myth we like to believe.

War has always been a complete disregard for human life, Renly was willing to kill thousands so that he could justify his claim. Stannis was willing to take that hurtful decision to kill one and save thousands.

[Lord Varys]

Well, Renly brought the customs/law/whatever much earlier by deciding to not bend the knee to Stannis. He was his older brother, technically Stannis should not have been forced to smash his treason in battle, he should have been able to seize and execute him as the traitor that he was.

If I had been in Stannis's shoes, and had the two of the following options to deal with my traitor brother

1. Try take on his huge army in the field, which would result in lots and lots of unnecessary deaths, including very well my own.

2. Use supernatural means to take out him and him alone before anybody else dies.

I'd would have done the same as Stannis. Just as I'd have sent out a mortal assassin to do the job if this had been an option.

[LuisDantas]

At this point I can only wonder... has the fact that Stannis failed to prove his claims, and therefore Tommen gets to keep his own, escaped you all? Or is the statement that Stannis is without a doubt the King based on some other notion instead?

[Ser Barristan BadAss]

Tommen may sit on the Iron Throne, but he's not the rightful King. As we the readers know, we ourselves know that Tommen is the spawn of incest. Those who support him don't support him because he's the rightful King, they support him for their own benefit and greed.

[LuisDantas]

Far as many people in Westeros know - or can possibly know - Tommen is indeed the rightful King (or more properly, the lawful one) and Stannis has simply lost control of the chip he carries on his shoulder.

Stannis could call for a great council and attempt to grab the support of the law, since proof is impossible to produce. It would be of dubious usefulness, but it would be the lawful way to go.

Without either proof, a confession, or the arbitration, Stannis has absolutely no right to expect to be considered the rightful King from anyone.

[SummerGhostofNymeria]

Stannis did happen to fail to gain support for his claim. Renly did have far more backing, and afterward many of those still didn't flock to Stannis' side... I'm only saying this as a random point in all this. I'm not taking sides in this discussion either way. I liked Renly, I think he could have done a fairly decent job. I also think that Stannis could do a good job if 1. He could manage to gain the support he needs. (Remember he's at the wall, and he is in need of at least the support of the northmen buuuut.... 2. He could manage to get rid of Melisandre. Both have their positive and negative aspects. Yes, I know that Stannis is lawfully supposed to be the king, but as stated already, people don't seem to really believe that claim, and if they do (I don't know, I'm just saying)... they're still somehow unwilling to throw support to his cause, and staying with Tommen for one reason or another...

[Raerin]

very long posts earlier in the topic and im sure everything that's been said has been. (should compile the arguments into one of those "ASOIAF and philosophy" books, honestly.)

Definitely, that book would be very interesting.

We modern people don't really have an understanding of ethical warfare, but warfare used to be a highly ritualized affair. For Westeros and our Medieval history, this is where all the knights and codes of honor and chivalry come in. Knights with all their ribbons and trappings were the only ones allowed to fight and carry weapons, hopefully because they were the ones who understood what it meant to walk around carrying a sword. People had the capability of going out and wreaking havoc so it was necessary to have some social constructions to keep them in line. Whether or not they were followed is a different matter--this is why Gregor Clegane is so scary and why we have terms like "war crime." yet I hear naive people, unfamiliar with the idea of honor in battle, saying "how can there be war crimes? you win or you die."

I am afraid that your outlook on medieval knights is delusive and rather idealistic. You see, the whole idea of the code of chivalry came from the songs and tales written by troubadours who lived a century later. The ideal knight is just their invention that was supposed to please nobles. Especially when the hero from the song was an ancestor of the knight who held the feast. Those stories were touching and sentimental in describing good, old times of the chivalry, but it was just a fiction.

The reality was different. There is a Catalan story called 'Tirant lo Blanch.' Its author, Joanot Martorell, lived in 15/16th century and was a man deeply idealistic and passionate toward the image of the ideal knight. However, his life experience proved him something completely different. That is why Tirant, the main character of the story, in one moment treats a lady with gallantry, just like a knight should behave, and in the another he rapes her. Sadly, that is how it worked. Even then some people wanted to believe that being a knight is an outstanding and honourable thing, but they were not seeing this at all.

The medieval class of knighthood stemmed directly from the early Middle Ages war parties, usually accompanying tribe chiefs in conquering and pillages. The knights were supposed to do the same. They were destined to fight, that is why they needed to train the entire life. Their role was to help their liege in conquering new lands and destroying enemies. Carrying sword was their privilege and symbol of their class, but those days every man must have known how to defend himself and his family.

People start to think more and more like this, and you have issues like the peasant conscription in the Middle ages. Instead of knights from the noble class only being allowed to fight, use people as fodder. In our own history, warfare moved away from a ritualized affair and more towards total warfare--bombing cities, trenches, poisoning water supply, Blitzkrieg, and the reactionary techniques like Guerilla warfare and suicide bombing. You get to where we are now which is a complete disregard for human life.

What Stannis did by murdering Renly was go outside the ritualized concept of war--in essence, HE is the outlaw. By using Melisandre's power to murder Renly, he put himself above the ethical considerations of warfare. He denied the "law", the social constructions of warfare that are in place to keep society functioning. If you don't think so, consider what would have happened if Renly played by Stannis's rules--he would have just ambushed him during their pre-war meeting in the forest, and killed him. "Surprise, my army is six times greater than yours" and your favorite character would be dead.

War has no rules, especially in the Middle Ages. The ritual you mentioned about belongs to the realm of fantasies born in the troubadours' songs. And a typical medieval war was really nasty. The Knights of the Cross wiped out the entire nations in the northern Europe, because they were considered savages. Crusaders, while singing praises to God, burnt whole cities in the Middle East and butchered the civilians or sold them to slavery. In the years 1209-1229 A.D. the entire population of the south Provence has been slaughtered due to religious differences. They killed even women and children. War of the Roses or the Hundred Years' War is another example of atrocities and treasons committed by 'valiant' and 'honourable' knights.

You see, I understand why you want to believe in concept of the 'civilised' war. I am with you in that case. Imagine that the second favorite character of mine is Arthur Dayne. But war reveals everything that is worse in humans. Only few have enough strength to keep in doing good things.

My point is that Stannis chose lesser evil. Hardly was it honourable, but the man was pushed into a corner. That is the situation when you need to bend the rules, especially when you are a king and your decision may cost you thousands of lives. But in fact it is a king who is entitled to make such decisions. Renly did not just break the rules, by his treason he defiled them entirely. And I suppose he was too self-confident and inexperienced to prepare an ambush.

But Renly is more honorable than Stannis, so he wouldn't do that. He would not imagine going agaisnt the fundamental structure of society in such a new way. They are playing a new game now. By stannis's means, people will soon be assassinating each other left and right because, hey why not? When others gain the capability/technology of winning so dishonorably, the society quickly descends into chaos.

So you consider betrayal of the family and threatening to an elder brother less honourable than using unusual tool to eliminate an enemy? And by the way, I want to remind you that dragons are exactly the dishonourable technology of winning you describe. Am I right, KhaleesiDany?

Renly's people were willing to support him because it was he who held court at every crossroads for them and brought some stability to their lives. Renly's army was bigger because he was the better king, even if he wasn't the rightful king. Therefore it is Stannis who raises his hand against his brother. Kinslayer. And at what cost? The continued destabilization of his entire kingdom.

That is incorrect. Renly had Tyrells' support, because he was just an ideal pawn to play with. Renly was bribed with luxury, fancy clothes, and the perspective of having new toys, so Tyrells could use him like a puppet hanging on the strings. It is obvious from their later actions that all Mace Tyrell wants is to stay behind the throne. I do not find those greedy schemers appropriate for ruling the kingdom. And in no way did Renly show that he is a better king, unless you have holding feasts and tournaments in mind. The army was bigger, because Storm's End was richer than Dragonstone, and Tyrells had their own army too.

We can go around in circles all day. I think what it boils down to is what you think is more important--what you deserve by birth, or what you deserve by your actions. Both camps are willing to go completely above the law to get it. Which law is worse to break? The one that keeps society free from wanton violence? Or the traditional one that many people are wiling and ready to change?

Renly did not create a new order. Treasons and feuds between brothers happened before. Just remind you a Dance with Dragons from the history of Targaryen family. But I agree that actions are important. However, blind and unconsidered actions are just stupid.

I am sorry for the history lesson, I hope I proved my point. Thank you for the post, I really enjoy the conversation.