Why all the love for Stannis ?

[Jabronius Maximus]

@LuisDantas:

I'm not sure you're getting my point. I did not say assassination, and murder in general, is fine in my book. What I'm trying to say is that it's better than meeting in battle, where there's sure to be a lot of bloodshed, and it's going to be people who merely do what they're told that're gonna do the dying. Essentially, this is a conflict between Renly and Stannis. By killing Renly alone, Stannis saves lives by avoiding a battle. Is killing Renly absolutely necessary? Yes, if Stannis wants to claim the throne - Renly (and Stannis) firmly put any other alternative in the ground at the parley.

I see that you're trying to take a moralist stance on this, and I am trying to meet you on that. But in my book, avoiding killing people that don't need to be killed is morally superior to killing said people, but only on the field of battle. Yes, Stannis said that battle would take place on the morrow. And yes, he made an underhanded move and he helped assassinate Renly. I do not deny any of that, but I still maintain that of the two alternatives Stannis had, battle or assassination, assassination was the nobler way.

I see LuisDantas' viewpoint on the moral grey area as well, I mean that was his own brother. For those who say Stannis had 2 choices - assassinate Renly or meet in battle - and that Stannis chose the former to save lives, there was the 3rd option of giving up his claim and saving yet another life: Renly's. Actually that could have indirectly prevented the Red Wedding, not to mention the countless other losses due to the WO5K. So to say that Stannis chose to assassinate Renly for an honourable cause is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, Stannis would die before giving up his claim (a stubbornness in him which I like), but he chose to assassinate Renly to save his own ass. The fact that Renly was guilty of treason made the assassination a rather convenient choice for Stannis. But it was still a choice. He could have chosen to give up his claim, and in the process save countless lives, depose terrible rulers and help prepare for the next Long Night. This is why I view his 'saving the realm' bit as a mere campaign slogan. If he truly cared (outside of the context of his bid for the throne), he would have given up his claim and sided with Renly. The realm would be so much better off as a result. The quality of the storytelling would suffer, though because such an action is way out of character for Stannis. But that is a discussion for another thread.

I wonder if it's possible to say this and remain a Stannis fan (I will try). I didn't think much of him in ACOK/ASOS, but he does have numerous positive qualities that came out in ADWD, as Mr. Motte pointed out above. It's just that 'saving the realm' isn't one of them. Unless he's king while he's doing the saving.

[Jayaris]

I see LuisDantas' viewpoint on the moral grey area as well, I mean that was his own brother. For those who say Stannis had 2 choices - assassinate Renly or meet in battle - and that Stannis chose the former to save lives, there was the 3rd option of giving up his claim and saving yet another life: Renly's. Actually that could have indirectly prevented the Red Wedding, not to mention the countless other losses due to the WO5K. So to say that Stannis chose to assassinate Renly for an honourable cause is a bit of a stretch.

Renly had that choice too, maybe Stannis knew well enough that he would never be able to shoulder the shame of having bent the knee to his brother when the throne was legitimately his. He was already middle-aged, what good would it do him to live the rest of his life holed up in Storm's End, more bitter than ever. Renly didn't even expect (see:try) to try and bargain a settlement, he brought Catelyn Stark simply to make a spectacle of it, then proceeded to insult him, his terms weren't even good. He could of offered him a prominent leadership position in the upcoming battle, given his extensive military experience, but he didn't even give him that.

Renly just pretty much tries to troll him in the open field, why didn't he invite him into his tent for a private conversation? Try to reason with him in a convincing and emotional way? Because Renly there is no emotional bond between them, and it is simpler for him if Stannis simply dies.

Stannis only actually makes the decision to die rather than submit, it's fairly obvious he didn't consciously send a shadow assassin after Renly.

[Jayaris]

And did so in a particularly shameful, dishonorable way and likes to pretend that he doesn't know that.

Cowardy, thy name is Stannis Baratheon.

Presenting conjecture as fact, cringe worthy.

[Kobayashi Maru]

They were never friends really. Without those emotional bonds, water is thicker than blood for Stannis.

It doesn't matter if they were friends they were brothers and even if he hated him it's still wrong. He didn't just did it to Renly I don't know if I can express it the way I want but he did it to himself also.He made himself a man who would kill his brother for a throne. He weighed all the options and decided it's ok to kill your blood for more power. Wrong no matter how you feel for your brother.

And I think he new what Mel would do. He ordered Davos to take her to the shore and tomorrow his brother is dead. He's not stupid.

[Masamune]

I thought it was only

And I think he new what Mel would do. He ordered Davos to take her to the shore and tomorrow his brother is dead. He's not stupid.

Isn't that only in the TV show, since they combined Renly's assassination with Ser Cortnay Penrose's?

[Quentyn Baratheon]

Davos does "smuggle" Melisandre in Storm's End.

[Masamune]

Davos does "smuggle" Melisandre in Storm's End.

Just checking. Haven't read ACoK for awhile.

I still don't see Renly's assassination as a mark against Stannis. The two of them WERE AT WAR. Stannis offered Renly (the usurper here, it must be said) a way out and he spat it back in his face. On the battlefield, by a Faceless Man, by a Shadow Baby, what does it matter? Renly was an obstacle in Stannis's legitimate claim and a traitor to his family and the realm.

[Kobayashi Maru]

Just checking. Haven't read ACoK for awhile.

I still don't see Renly's assassination as a mark against Stannis. The two of them WERE AT WAR. Stannis offered Renly (the usurper here, it must be said) a way out and he spat it back in his face. On the battlefield, by a Faceless Man, by a Shadow Baby, what does it matter? Renly was an obstacle in Stannis's legitimate claim and a traitor to his family and the realm.

I think it makes all the difference.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Renly had that choice too, maybe Stannis knew well enough that he would never be able to shoulder the shame of having bent the knee to his brother when the throne was legitimately his. He was already middle-aged, what good would it do him to live the rest of his life holed up in Storm's End, more bitter than ever. Renly didn't even expect (see:try) to try and bargain a settlement, he brought Catelyn Stark simply to make a spectacle of it, then proceeded to insult him, his terms weren't even good. He could of offered him a prominent leadership position in the upcoming battle, given his extensive military experience, but he didn't even give him that.

Renly just pretty much tries to troll him in the open field, why didn't he invite him into his tent for a private conversation? Try to reason with him in a convincing and emotional way? Because Renly there is no emotional bond between them, and it is simpler for him if Stannis simply dies.

Stannis only actually makes the decision to die rather than submit, it's fairly obvious he didn't consciously send a shadow assassin after Renly.

I get it I just don't agree with people who say the safety of the realm is Stannis' primary concern. That said, he is the only one to recognize the true threat, even if it is to curry favour in his bid for the throne. But Renly's assassination will always be a sore point for me in Stannis' story, even if was the 'lawful' thing to do.

[LuisDantas]

I see LuisDantas' viewpoint on the moral grey area as well, I mean that was his own brother. For those who say Stannis had 2 choices - assassinate Renly or meet in battle - and that Stannis chose the former to save lives, there was the 3rd option of giving up his claim and saving yet another life: Renly's. Actually that could have indirectly prevented the Red Wedding, not to mention the countless other losses due to the WO5K. So to say that Stannis chose to assassinate Renly for an honourable cause is a bit of a stretch.

It is an olympic stretch, actually, and I don't even factor his blood relation in the mix. It would be the same for me if Renly and Stannis weren't relatives.

I really don't understand why people so often give such a wide berth to Stannis' poor choices involving Renly and the Stormlands.

The core of the matter is that Stannis chose to create the confrontation when he had all the conceivable reasons and excuses to avoid it; and then he intentionally misled Renly into an honorable agreement to hold off hostilities until dawn only to betray that agreement and assassinate Renly.

Such behavior is well into "inexcusable" territory. It doesn't help that in so doing he also aggravated the War of Five Kings by shifting the Tyrell's allegiance towards the Lannisters. It may well have been the decisive act of the whole conflict, and it caused so many otherwise avoidable deaths that I can't believe there are people claiming that Renly's assassination "saved lives".

The only way to make even a semblance of sense out of defenses of Renly's assassination is by taking as a premise that Stannis is completely unable of doing anything except pushing his bid for the throne. Which amounts to saying that I should forgive his bloodthirst and even admire his tenacity because he is mentally crippled. I don't think I am supposed to go there.

So sorry for all you Stannis sympathizers, but the man is rotten beyond hope and I look forward for his utter, complete, plenty well-deserved, none-too-soon ruin.

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas:

I'm not sure you're getting my point. I did not say assassination, and murder in general, is fine in my book. What I'm trying to say is that it's better than meeting in battle, where there's sure to be a lot of bloodshed, and it's going to be people who merely do what they're told that're gonna do the dying. Essentially, this is a conflict between Renly and Stannis. By killing Renly alone, Stannis saves lives by avoiding a battle. Is killing Renly absolutely necessary? Yes, if Stannis wants to claim the throne - Renly (and Stannis) firmly put any other alternative in the ground at the parley.

To hold such a line of thought is a serious mistake, however. I refuse to grant it any consideration.

Far more than by any claims of blood relations and law, the legitimacy of Kings is measured, if not all-out created, by their abilities to convince others to cooperate with them, to follow their plans, and yes, to lend their swords to their battles.

Renly played fair in that regard. He did not try to claim that somehow he was the eldest or somesuch. And of particular importance here, he did not go out of his way to put Stannis at risk. In fact, the exact opposite happened: Stannis could have chosen to avoid conflict entirely or to target King's Landing instead, but he chose to steal Renly's troops instead.

I can give no serious consideration to statements that killing Renly was somehow "self-defense" when said self-defense involves actively pursuing the "menace" and agreeing on a time for hostilities then betraying that agreement. I wonder how anyone can, I really do.

I see that you're trying to take a moralist stance on this, and I am trying to meet you on that. But in my book, avoiding killing people that don't need to be killed is morally superior to killing said people, but only on the field of battle. Yes, Stannis said that battle would take place on the morrow. And yes, he made an underhanded move and he helped assassinate Renly. I do not deny any of that, but I still maintain that of the two alternatives Stannis had, battle or assassination, assassination was the nobler way.

Sorry, but I just can't even imagine how that could work. You're talking nonsense far as I can parse it.

[LuisDantas]

Just checking. Haven't read ACoK for awhile.

I still don't see Renly's assassination as a mark against Stannis. The two of them WERE AT WAR. Stannis offered Renly (the usurper here, it must be said) a way out and he spat it back in his face. On the battlefield, by a Faceless Man, by a Shadow Baby, what does it matter? Renly was an obstacle in Stannis's legitimate claim and a traitor to his family and the realm.

Thing is, Renly's claim to legitimacy was backed by the legions that were willing to fight for him, while Stannis' was backed by an unproven claim of lawful support.

Being at war is emphatically no excuse for choosing to bypass the relevant matters of army loyalties and strengths and engage in treacherous murder. Whatever moral high ground Stannis might have said in his bid for the throne before was irremediably destroyed by the assassination.

[butterbumps!]

I wonder if it's possible to say this and remain a Stannis fan (I will try). I didn't think much of him in ACOK/ASOS, but he does have numerous positive qualities that came out in ADWD, as Mr. Motte pointed out above. It's just that 'saving the realm' isn't one of them. Unless he's king while he's doing the saving.

Stannis is both egregiously bad and incredibly good at times. Maybe you and I can form a splinter "how I learned to stop whitewashing and still love Stannis" support group, lol.

[Winter's Knight]

Stannis is both egregiously bad and incredibly good at times. Maybe you and I can form a splinter "how I learned to stop whitewashing and still love Stannis" support group, lol.

We could combine with "Sweet Cersei: Loving the Wildfire Queen Whilst Still being A Decent Human Being". Uniform:tinfoil hat, flame retardant suit.

[Jabronius Maximus]

So sorry for all you Stannis sympathizers, but the man is rotten beyond hope and I look forward for his utter, complete, plenty well-deserved, none-too-soon ruin.

Whoah that's a bit harsh there hahah

I say Stannis is on a good path now (even though he will die), because he's listening to the 'angel on his shoulder' Davos.

I think he made a terrible mistake in trusting Melisandre (the devil on his shoulder) in the first place. While that doesn't excuse his subsequent actions, he would have been better off following Cressen's advice and treating with Robb. At that time, I'd say Cressen was the 'angel'.

What I think it boils down to for Stannis is his great lust for recognition. At first, Melisandre hailed him as AAR, when noone else gave a damn about him, so he immediately trusted in her powers, one of which was involved in the assassination. Later on, Davos shows unending loyalty, recognizes Stannis as a good man and king, which eventually results in Stannis' naming him Hand. But Davos is a little different, because we see many positive traits of Stannis through Davos, not just the need for recognition. Still, I think this is Stannis' biggest flaw as a character, and it will lead to his downfall. But not before he puts a Stark in Winterfell of course.

[Masamune]

Thing is, Renly's claim to legitimacy was backed by the legions that were willing to fight for him, while Stannis' was backed by an unproven claim of lawful support.

By practically every law in Westeros, Stannis is the true heir to the Baratheon throne. Just because Renly happened to be more popular doesn't make his claim anymore legitimate. It's curious how you're willing to completely whitewash Renly's betrayal of both familial & royal lineage in order to score points against Stannis.

Being at war is emphatically no excuse for choosing to bypass the relevant matters of army loyalties and strengths and engage in treacherous murder. Whatever moral high ground Stannis might have said in his bid for the throne before was irremediably destroyed by the assassination.

You're being terribly idealistic here. War is war. If you can take out your opposite number in the most expedient way possible (especially when his forces outnumber you), you're going to take it. If anything, Renly's assassination prevented a whole lot of bloodshed.

[Sun and Spear]

Practicly, Stannis will clear the kingdom from the corroption and after renly's death, he's the only one that will make aproper king.

[Thendel]

To hold such a line of thought is a serious mistake, however. I refuse to grant it any consideration.

Far more than by any claims of blood relations and law, the legitimacy of Kings is measured, if not all-out created, by their abilities to convince others to cooperate with them, to follow their plans, and yes, to lend their swords to their battles.

Renly played fair in that regard. He did not try to claim that somehow he was the eldest or somesuch. And of particular importance here, he did not go out of his way to put Stannis at risk. In fact, the exact opposite happened: Stannis could have chosen to avoid conflict entirely or to target King's Landing instead, but he chose to steal Renly's troops instead.

I can give no serious consideration to statements that killing Renly was somehow "self-defense" when said self-defense involves actively pursuing the "menace" and agreeing on a time for hostilities then betraying that agreement. I wonder how anyone can, I really do.

Sorry, but I just can't even imagine how that could work. You're talking nonsense far as I can parse it.

Well, I'll dumb it down a notch: In order for Stannis to win, Renly's soldiers do not need to be killed, but Renly does. Killing Renly's soldiers = bad, avoid killing Renly's soldiers = good. And what was the outcome of the assassination: Renly and a few others died, but no soldiers did, because there was no battle. If there had been a battle, Stannis, nearly all of his soldiers plus a fair share of Renly's own men would be dead, which is easily a number in the thousands.

Was the whole Stormlands tour absolutely necessary for Stannis' plans? Obviously, because he lacked the men to take King's Landing, and confronting his brother (which was an inevitable conflict, unless one of them chose to back down, which the both of us know they would never do) could well gain him the men he needed to do that.

Why, you ask, did Stannis want to sit the Iron Throne? For two reasons:

1. He wanted to bring stability to the realm in the long term by reaffirming that the crown is passed down a bloodline, which in this case was the Baratheon dynasty. Given that Stannis knows that he is the righful heir by that law, he has to win the throne for himself if he wants to preserve the law.
   
2. He suscribes to the belief that the cold winds are rising, that something is afoot. A united Westeros would be infinitely more suited for the coming conflict than a fractured one. Given that Stannis is about the only contender who believes this, do you fault him for wanting to do something about it? Just sitting it out is not an option: With time, the Lannister regime would settle in, and he would have virtually no chance at gathering support against the Others.
   

On a final note, would you kindly do me the favor of not replying to my arguments with blatant arrogance? On a subject where you seem to advocate civilized and honorable behavior, you would do well to exercise it yourself.

[StannisBamfatheon]

Just because one man puts faith in him, does not mean much.

Blackwater was just one example, thanks for pointing out the other.

I find him to be a puppet led by mel.

But look at what he did after coming to the wall. Trying to manipulate jon into breaking his vows. And furthermore, stannis had no where else to go. He already lost and has a skeleton army left. What more use did he have?

Yes he's mel's puppet yet we have a Mel POV, you know....where we literally see her thoughts, and she states she believes Stannis is AA. Also Stannis deliberately disobeys her multiple times I.e. leaving her behind at Blackwater. Stop making things up.

As for why I like Stannis....how bout this little gem... "The more we bleed eachother, the weaker we shall all be when the true enemy falls upon us"

The only king who actually cares for the realm, uninterested in his own personal glory or that of his house. The only king who cared when the Night's Watch cried out for help.

[Brony Stark]

Sigh, I missed the good conversation.

But anyway. I love Stannis because he's the only king who cares for the realm and listened to the NW. Did Joff, or even Robb care about the rumours? No.

He's not a white character but he's capable of very compassionate acts.