Stannis and Renly

[Djinn]

I think I take your point, if you are going for magic is magic and is not inherently good or bad. Warging can be put to good or evil uses, etc., but because the shadowbabies seem to be diminishing Stannis is some way, I think there is something rotten about them. So even if a shadowbaby was used to rescue a cat stuck in a tree, I would still be wary about it.

So i take that if Stannis had used a human assassin, your objections would've been diminished. It's more about the method, not the act? I'm trying to understand the scope of your position.

It was likely kinslaying (it depends on what counts as kinslaying, do you have to be the one to actually do or does ordering someone count)?

It was certainly a legitimate act of war. Assassination of the enemy leader is a tactic. He gave Renly no promise of safety of assassination nor did he treat Renly as an ally. I do consider assassination reprehensible when it is performed on an ally like the *Red Wedding or Purple Wedding. But as I said, Stannis gave Renly no promise nor did he give Renly a reason to think he was an ally.

*Freys, Boltons, and Karstarks only. I actually don't see a problem with Tywin's hand because he was a declared enemy of Robb Stark. I say that as someone who hates Tywin.

Yes, once intentions are declared and enemies are acknowledged, assassination is available tactic. The Bin Laden situation, per example.

[LuisDantas]

Was Stannis's move against Renly simply kinslaying? Or was it a legitimate military manoeuvre?

Neither. It was opportunistic troop-stealing by way of betrayal of his word.

It was the first clear sign of how morally bankrupt Stannis truly is.

Yes, once intentions are declared and enemies are acknowledged, assassination is available tactic. The Bin Laden situation, per example.

Case in point. Stannis agreed to a time of battle and betrayed it.

[GREYJOY4LYFE]

Neither. It was opportunistic troop-stealing by way of betrayal of his word.

It was the first clear sign of how morally bankrupt Stannis truly is.

Stannis won the battle and caused only one death... of someone who was openly usurping the throne that rightfully belonged to Stannis by law. Definitely fair game, definitely doesn't show Stannis to be morally bankrupt.

[Night'sQueen]

So i take that if Stannis had used a human assassin, your objections would've been diminished. It's more about the method, not the act? I'm trying to understand the scope of your position.

Yes, once intentions are declared and enemies are acknowledged, assassination is available tactic. The Bin Laden situation, per example.

Yes, and yes to the point you made to Lord Bronn.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I side with Stannis here. People would call him a kinslayer if they knew the truth just like they called Bloodraven and Maekor kinslayers, but Renly was clearly in the wrong. People say that Stannis does not bend, but he bent very far for Renly. Offered to let him retain all his titles and make him his heir. The use of most likely dark magic is the only sticking point.

I agree with this. Renly was Stannis' brother but with his actions he contributed to tear the realm apart by creating a faction for himself instead of joining his brother and fight the Lannisters for have insulted not only the King but House Baratheon.

I still think he could have been a good King, though, but his actions weren't helping anybody except himself.

[The Night's Prince]

For Stannis it was dutiful and if anyone was going to kill his own blood it would be him....oh wait....nvm.

[E-Ro]

I told myself i wouldn't, but i cant help it.

The use of a shadowbabey is no different then using any other weapon in war. You use whatever means you have available to beat the enemy. No one complains about dragons being "unfair" or "morally bankrupt" yet with dragons the manner of death is far more painful, and far more lives are lost. In real life, when your life is on the line, you do whatever you can to survive. Renly knew what he was getting into when i declared himself king, he knew the dangers, knew that people would try to kill him, knew his brother would not back down, and he knew he was in the wrong.

Assassinations, are a legit military maneuver, and it happens in real life in the present day, and in history. The method was no less evil then using a drone, a dragon, or a knight riding down an infantryman. All tools used by militaries are to give you an advantage over the enemy, armor, steel weapons, etc. a shadowbabey gives you an advantage in the same way.

I find it funny, that people are complaining about the death of ONE MAN, a man who was AT WAR in war men die, sorry but its that simple.

There are only two types of legitimate military maneuvers in ASOIAF - battle and siege, three if you count reaving. What Stannis did was a fratricide. It was even less legitimate than the Red Wedding.

Is using dragons a legitimate military maneuver? Who decides what a legitimate military maneuver is?

[Sword of the Mid-Afternoon]

RENLY IS NOT RIGHT!

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Is using dragons a legitimate military maneuver? Who decides what a legitimate military maneuver is?

I guess many people wouldn't complain if Renly had used magic as well or if he had used such magic in face-to-face combat, like a magic duel. The problem seems to be that Renly died in a way that would be similar to being killed in his sleep. There is not much honour about that.

About who decides what a legitimate military maneuver, I don't know. I never knew of a country that said "oh, let's not use our advanced weapons because our enemies have the previous version".

[Ser Edmure Tully]

RENLY IS NOT RIGHT!

Finally someone talking sense

[David Selig]

I agree with this. Renly was Stannis' brother but with his actions he contributed to tear the realm apart by creating a faction for himself instead of joining his brother and fight the Lannisters for have insulted not only the King but House Baratheon.

I still think he could have been a good King, though, but his actions weren't helping anybody except himself.

You can say the exact same thing with Stannis and Renly's names reversed and it'd still be true.

Personally I don't care if it was a legitimate military maneuver or not, doesn't make a difference to me ethically and morally. The important thing is that Stannis chose to have his brother murdered instead of backing out by accepting one of the top positions in the realm (Lord of Storm's End). That's despicable in my book.

[Morienthar]

I told myself i wouldn't, but i cant help it.

The use of a shadowbabey is no different then using any other weapon in war. You use whatever means you have available to beat the enemy. No one complains about dragons being "unfair" or "morally bankrupt" yet with dragons the manner of death is far more painful, and far more lives are lost. In real life, when your life is on the line, you do whatever you can to survive. Renly knew what he was getting into when i declared himself king, he knew the dangers, knew that people would try to kill him, knew his brother would not back down, and he knew he was in the wrong.

Assassinations, are a legit military maneuver, and it happens in real life in the present day, and in history. The method was no less evil then using a drone, a dragon, or a knight riding down an infantryman. All tools used by militaries are to give you an advantage over the enemy, armor, steel weapons, etc. a shadowbabey gives you an advantage in the same way.

Still a Kinslayer though.

I think a Single Combat challenge would have served Stannis better,His brother deserved that much and he would have avoided all the dishonourable assassination hoopla surrounding Renly's death and as most of us can agree Stannis would have won and removed Renly from the scene.

[Mulled Wino]

Still a Kinslayer though.

I think a Single Combat challenge would have served Stannis better,His brother deserved that much and he would have avoided all the dishonourable assassination hoopla surrounding Renly's death and as most of us can agree Stannis would have won and removed Renly from the scene.

so single combat...would he still be a kinslayer?

Again, stannis wasnt aware the baby was coming

[Mulled Wino]

You can say the exact same thing with Stannis and Renly's names reversed and it'd still be true.

Personally I don't care if it was a legitimate military maneuver or not, doesn't make a difference to me ethically and morally. The important thing is that Stannis chose to have his brother murdered instead of backing out by accepting one of the top positions in the realm (Lord of Storm's End). That's despicable in my book.

You think Stannis should have bent the knee to Renly?

[Morienthar]

so single combat...would he still be a kinslayer?

Again, stannis wasnt aware the baby was coming

He still would,But at least he would have been hailed for having the courage to do it in person.

As for Stannis didn't know,I don't think he knew the means but he knew the end and that is bad enough.

[LuisDantas]

Stannis won the battle and caused only one death... of someone who was openly usurping the throne that rightfully belonged to Stannis by law. Definitely fair game, definitely doesn't show Stannis to be morally bankrupt.

It was a war crime, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Stannis is a war criminal, a morally bankrupt man, and a major self-serving hypocrite.

That he is also a kinslayer is irrelevant by comparison.

[Mulled Wino]

It was a war crime, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Stannis is a war criminal, a morally bankrupt man, and a major self-serving hypocrite.

That he is also a kinslayer is irrelevant by comparison.

prove its a war crime.

[E-Ro]

Here is a great essay from the tower of the hand on renly and stannis, enjoy! http://towerofthehan...ones/index.html

I am also unsure of how killing an enemy combatant, who is in charge of the opposing force qualifies as a war crime. Stannis executed no pows, and caused no civilian deaths(same cant be said of renly, as he slowly starved KL I wonder how many infants and elderly people died as a result of that choice)

there is no denying the crude strength of his argument that his opponents should bend the knee because he possesses a predominance (if not a hegemony) of military force, lest they be destroyed outright. In many ways, it's the same argument Aegon made to his peers before the Conquest.

In the long-term, however, it's an extremely dangerous political theory for the stability of the Westerosi monarchy. Renly has the most troops at that moment, but there's no way to be sure that Renly or his descendant, or his descendant's descendant will have the same numerical advantage in the future. If his argument is accepted as binding precedent, Renly will forever have to remain on his guard lest someone out there strike while he is unaware since it's now accepted that a strongman can legitimately overthrow a sitting king. Even if he succeeded in holding the Iron Throne for the duration of his natural life, the odds are good that his death will set off a new civil war as each of the Great Houses assesses the new balance of power.

Inheritance by blood is not a political principle that most of us accept today, but in its time it promised stability and a predictable consistency in the transition of power. When the alternative isn't representative government or an elective mandate but rather military strength, the results are brutal and chaotic, as the Romans found out.

[Lord Damian]

I blame the scheming Tyrells for this whole thing. Stannis was understandably pissed. Renly was an arrogant pratt that without the Tyrells, would not have attempted such a thing.

[Eating My Wings]

and a major self-serving hypocrite.

With a high chance of Mel's magic not working and the Tyrells turning to the boy king, uncertain loyalty of the storm lords and large lion army in the north, kneeling to Renly would have actually increased his power and improved his chances of becoming the king. Why didn't Stannis the Hypocrite do that?