Stannis's Decision to have Renly killed (long post).

[Lazy Lion]

Those dragons still provided Dany with a way out of her situation, whether people know about them or not. The same way the "shadow baby" provided Stannis with a way out of his situation.

Something being useful isn't what makes it a deus ex machina. The dragons hatching had been foreshadowed for half the novel. That's the opposite of a deus ex machina.

Plus, no one ever knows when a Faceless Man is coming for them.

But they know that Faceless Men exist. Nobody ever says "We should hire the Faceless Men" but then gets shouted down by a chorus of "There's not such thing!"

Mel's falsehoods are always open to interpretation. Stannis' deteriorating state of health, and inability to make another "shadow baby" is not open to interpretation.

Lots of people suffer from deteriorating health without ever having fathered a Shadow Baby. The fact of the matter is that we don't see any indication of Stannis' health deteriorating until after the Blackwater. Losing the war could easily be causing Stannis' health to deteriorate. We only have Mel's word that it has anything to do with the shadows, and Mel has shown herself to be unreliable at best.

If he still had it in him, Mel would have sucked it out by now.

Mel might honestly believe that the Shadow Babies are draining Stannis' health. Mel has been wrong before.

[Jasta11]

The difference isn't a matter of black magic vs. light/good magic; the difference is that the way the shadowbabies are used by Melisandre and Stannis and the way that Dany will/might use dragons to conquer Westeros, and the way Robb used Grey Wind, etc. is different in the way that at least with those forms of magic, everyone knows that they have a chance of dying from them and they are aware of the threat, and can choose to respond to the threat, accordingly. They are also aware that they have a chance of defeating this threat.

However, it's different with the shadowbaby. The shadowbaby attacks swiftly and without warning. How do you defeat a shadow? Renly had absolutely no idea that he would be murdered by some form of magic on the night before his victory over Stannis, and therein lies the difference.

... Come on now. Your argument against shadowbabies is that it wasn't fair? That's flankly a bit ridiculous. No one had any chance against Aegon's grown, trained dragons, no more than the Japanese had any chance against the A-bomb even if they saw it coming. Not a single Lannister knew about Robb warging, let alone that Grey Wind would find a convenient hidden pass that allowed a crushing Stark victory. That guy in Braavos never expected that ugly little girl to be a trained, cold-blooded killer. War isin't fair by definition, and Dany's dragons are potentially a lot more unfair than anything Melissandre can conjure up. I find that argument silly to be honest.

As for the Deus Ex machina complaint, that's a bit more reasonable, but we still know in advance that Melissandre has great powers and that Stannis has a plan. I'm not saying the shadowbabies are the greatest plot device ever, but to say they're out of line with the rest of the setting's magic is far-fetched. It's not worse than Bran discovering his unique ability to possess people right at the moment where it's the only thing that can calm Hodor. Or when, again, Robb can suddendly warg into Grey Wind and suddendly finds a secret path that leads to a sudden victory. or when Dany's visions suddendly translate into the mother of all plot gifts at the end of AGoT. Magic is arbitrary by its very nature; to selectively apply the Deus Ex Machina to its uses is a bit obtuse to me. The very point of magic in these books is to turn things around.

[TheMysteriousOne]

War isin't fair by definition, and Dany's dragons are potentially a lot more unfair than anything Melissandre can conjure up

Dany's dragons are small, tiny things compared to Aegon's three and even they could be defeated. Jorah said that the Targaryen dragons were bred for war, and they died in war. Everyone knows that dragons can be defeated just like the direwolves can. The people in Slaver's Bay weren't afraid to tell Dany that her dragons could be defeated, and as I said before, there have been Targaryen dragons that were defeated. How do you defeat a shadow? Answer this question, and I'll concede.

[Lazy Lion]

It's not worse than Bran discovering his unique ability to possess people right at the moment where it's the only thing that can calm Hodor.

Bran warging into Hodor didn't give him an army. It didn't gain him the support of the lords of the Reach and the Stormlands, and it didn't allow him to lay siege to King's Landing. Yes, it was convenient...but the impact it has on the story is an order of magnitude less.

Or when, again, Robb can suddendly warg into Grey Wind and suddendly finds a secret path that leads to a sudden victory.

Did Robb warg into Grey Wind? I was under the impression that Grey Wind just found the secret path on his own, and Robb followed him. Still an abuse for plot purposes, but again not nearly in the same league as Stannis killing Renly.

or when Dany's visions suddendly translate into the mother of all plot gifts at the end of AGoT.

That's where you missed the distinction: Dany was having visions. The dragons hatching had been building throughout the second half of the book, and Drogo's pyre was the culmination of those events. I repeat, that's the opposite of a deus ex machina.

Shadow Babies aren't a deus ex machina because they're magic (ETA: or even because they're unfair.); it's because of how they're used by the author. Renly suddenly dropping dead in the middle of his own camp on the eve of a battle he was certain to win was one of the most pivotal events of the entire series so far. Virtually every single thing in Westeros has been different because of that Shadow Baby...who suddenly appeared without any hint that it was possible, on the part of the characters or the readers. That's the textbook definition of a deus ex machina.

[Jasta11]

Dany's dragons are small, tiny things compared to Aegon's three and even they could be defeated. Jorah said that the Targaryen dragons were bred for war, and they died in war. Everyone knows that dragons can be defeated just like the direwolves can. The people in Slaver's Bay weren't afraid to tell Dany that her dragons could be defeated, and as I said before, there have been Targaryen dragons that were defeated. How do you defeat a shadow? Answer this question, and I'll concede.

You try to do what Cressen did, kill the witch. Didn't work in his case admitedly, but still, it was a valient attempt. Or you go to the root and raze Asshai I guess.

As for the dragons, that's why I said potentially. I'm pretty sure Martin didn't hatch them only to have them fry Quentyn, but if Dany had years and a proper idea of how to train a dragon, her plot gift would be even more overpowered than Stannis's. At least the shadowbabies seem very limited, even moreso than Faceless Man assistance.. A full-grown dragon is basically a reusable nuke, and three are just complete overkill for anything short of a modern army.

But honestly, your argument is not against Stannis (why shouldn't he use Melissandre if he has her at his disposal?). It's against the narrative, which is more understandable. But I maintain that blaming Stannis himself for the shadowbaby is silly.

[Leif]

It's war. Stannis gave him a warning. Gotta do what'chu gotta do.

[Kolantero]

Shadow Babies aren't a deus ex machina because they're magic (ETA: or even because they're unfair.); it's because of how they're used by the author. Renly suddenly dropping dead in the middle of his own camp on the eve of a battle he was certain to win was one of the most pivotal events of the entire series so far. Virtually every single thing in Westeros has been different because of that Shadow Baby...who suddenly appeared without any hint that it was possible, on the part of the characters or the readers. That's the textbook definition of a deus ex machina.

In other words you don't have any problems with what Stannis did, or melisandre did, or how they did it or with shadowbabies existing or black magic or anything... Your problem is how it was presented to the readers as a "surprise". So if GRRM had a chapter with Mel before and we read that she was thinking "I'm gonna have sex with the king and use magic to create a shadow to kill Renly" you would be fine with what happened.

How do you defeat a shadow? Answer this question, and I'll concede.

So the accusation here is that Stannis used a "way too good" method?

As if other people in the novels wouldn't if they had them at their disposal.

I think Mel is probably the biggest plot gift in ASOIAF. She comes out of nowhere and grants stannis access to powers that none of the other kings in Westeros could ever dream of. Stannis really doesn't have to lift a finger to secure her services. In no way is her power earned or paid for.

He does have his "lifeforce" (or whatever you wanna call it) sucked out of him to make the shadowbabies. Although it is possible that Mel will lead him to destruction

[Associate Maester]

I don't have an issue with what Stannis did here. I think it was a good strategy. He used a magical assassin the equivalent of a magical crossbow to me. I also interpret what he says to Davos as he's trying to convince himself his hands are clean. Deep down I think he knows. People can try and blame Mel for it all. However, Stannis is the King and Stannis has his own agency as an adult. Let's not forget he knowingly sent Mel with Davos to take care of Penrose. He's in some pretty deep denial about his part in Renly's death. I don't actually get the amount of flak Stannis gets for this decision. The issue for many seems to be not so much Renly's death, but the manner of it.

[Associate Maester]

I think Mel is probably the biggest plot gift in ASOIAF. She comes out of nowhere and grants stannis access to powers that none of the other kings in Westeros could ever dream of. Stannis really doesn't have to lift a finger to secure her services. In no way is her power earned or paid for.

Danny paid a price for her dragons. Bran paid for his greensight, and arya has sacrificed nearly everything on her road to becoming a facless man. Pretty much every use of magic in the series has some sort of cost assocciated. Sooner or later Stannis will have to pay his price, or his story won't work on a thematic level.

Stannis did pay a price for his role in the creation of the shadow assassins. It clearly aged him and weakened him given he his "fires burn low." He had terrible nightmare's after Renly's death. As to whether he has to "pay more" only Martin knows that. As for whether or not he needs to pay more or his arc doesn't work. Well, I suppose that depends on what people think is his arc.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Something being useful isn't what makes it a deus ex machina. The dragons hatching had been foreshadowed for half the novel. That's the opposite of a deus ex machina.

I know that something being useful doesn't make it a deus ex machina, the same way disliking a certain part of the story doesn't make it a deus ex machina.

Stannis hooked up with a creepy red "witch" that worshiped a strange god and saw magical visions in her flames. She told Stannis that she saw his victory over Renly even though Renly had more than enough men and power to defeat Stannis, implying that she would be the deciding factor if Stannis followed her god. She drank poison and survived. Stannis followed her god, and took her on as his adviser. Stannis marches on Renly, and attempts to convince Renly to bend the knee even though Stannis knows he cannot defeat Renly on the field.

Therefore, I do not believe that Martin's idea to use magic to assassinate Renly was contrived. It made perfect sense to me following Stannis and Mel's introductions to the story. I do not believe that Martin wrote himself into a corner and needed a way out, nor do I believe that Mel's use of magic was a far-fetched idea.

But they know that Faceless Men exist. Nobody ever says "We should hire the Faceless Men" but then gets shouted down by a chorus of "There's not such thing!"

If the issue is that a person cannot prepare for an attack from a "shadow baby" because they don't know it is coming, the same is true for the Faceless Men.

If people refuse to believe that magic exists in a place where the former kings conquered Westeros with dragons...well, that's just plain ole denial.

Lots of people suffer from deteriorating health without ever having fathered a Shadow Baby. The fact of the matter is that we don't see any indication of Stannis' health deteriorating until after the Blackwater. Losing the war could easily be causing Stannis' health to deteriorate. We only have Mel's word that it has anything to do with the shadows, and Mel has shown herself to be unreliable at best.

Mel might honestly believe that the Shadow Babies are draining Stannis' health. Mel has been wrong before.

Davos comments on Stannis' appearance shortly after Renly's death, before the second shadow baby and the Blackwater.

[Associate Maester]

What prevents Renly from hiring a Faceless Man to kill Stannis first? Money. Priorities. Pride, probably.

What prevents Renly from summoning a Shadow Baby to kill Stannis first? Oh yeah, Melisandre is the only character who can make Shadow Babies.

Expand that out: Robert's council discussed hiring a Faceless Man to kill Dany. It was dismissed (by LF) as too expensive.

The Lannisters could have hired Faceless Men to murder Rob, Stannis, Renly, Balon, etc. They didn't...mostly because FM are so expensive.

Make sense yet? Faceless Men are part of the game. Shadow Babies are not part of the game, because they are not universally known or universally accessible. Shadow Babies come out of left field, leaving the rest of the players thinking "WTF just happened??"

Shadow Babies aren't part of the game. Shadow Babies fundamentally alter the game. Shadow Babies are like having dragons...in a world where dragons never existed until right now, precisely when it is most convenient for Stannis.

I also contend that the alleged "consequences" to using them are questionable at best: Stannis kills two people at Storm's End, but doesn't start showing any signs of those "consequences" for weeks afterward...coincidentally right after he suffers a humiliating defeat on the Blackwater.

Thoros resurrecting Dondarrion ad nauseum was unnecessary, but harmless. It had no real impact on the overarching story of the war itself. Stannis' entire story arc hinges on his ability to assassinate Renly with a Shadow Baby.

Shadow assassin were not a part of the Game of Thrones--until Martin added them. Then they became a part of the GOT. Dragons haven't been a part of the GOT for a while either--until Dany's were born. It fits perfectly well with the themes Martin is playing with. That the plans of the people playing the GOT (Lannisters, Varys, Littlefinger, Renly etc.) are about to be wrecked because magic is coming back into the world: dire wolves, wights, Others, dragons, shadow assassins.

[Lazy Lion]

In other words you don't have any problems with what Stannis did, or melisandre did, or how they did it or with shadowbabies existing or black magic or anything...

My issue is that Martin essentially killed Renly for Stannis, rather than having Stannis do it himself. I'm annoyed because this author-gifted windfall fundamentally changed the political landscape of Westeros from that point. It was the literary equivalent of "Rocks fall, Renly dies." I dislike Stannis, finding him stodgy and surprisingly unprincipled for a man supposedly dedicated to justice, but my only major gripe is that his single greatest achievement in the course of the series so far has been to be loitering in the general vicinity when Martin killed his brother for him.

[jons nissa]

I also interpret what he says to Davos as he's trying to convince himself his hands are clean. Deep down I think he knows. People can try and blame Mel for it all. However, Stannis is the King and Stannis has his own agency as an adult. Let's not forget he knowingly sent Mel with Davos to take care of Penrose. He's in some pretty deep denial about his part in Renly's death. I don't actually get the amount of flak Stannis gets for this decision. The issue for many seems to be not so much Renly's death, but the manner of it.

this. and i don't know if i'd have an issue with the manner if he wasn't always saying how just and righteous he is. hypocrisy, thy name is stannis.

[Thendel]

My issue is that Martin essentially killed Renly for Stannis, rather than having Stannis do it himself. I'm annoyed because this author-gifted windfall fundamentally changed the political landscape of Westeros from that point. It was the literary equivalent of "Rocks fall, Renly dies." I dislike Stannis, finding him stodgy and surprisingly unprincipled for a man supposedly dedicated to justice, but my only major gripe is that his single greatest achievement in the course of the series so far has been to be loitering in the general vicinity when Martin killed his brother for him.

Melisandre killed Renly for Stannis. Her presence at Stannis' court was hinted as far back as during AGoT. In that same book, we see tidbits of the Asshai'i culture through Daenerys encountering shadowbinders at Vaes Dothrak and Mirri Mazz Duhr, who learned her spells in Asshai. Melisandre's branch of magic, esoteric as it is to Westerosi, was an established thing when she killed Renly, and as shocking as it was, it served to establish that magic exist in Planetos, and it can be used to great effect against the unsuspecting. Stannis placing faith in Melisandre helps to characterize him as a man willing to cross cultural boundaries to achieve his goals. From a literary perspective, Renly was simply built up so that Stannis and Melisandre could tear him down.

As for "single greatest achievement", I believe Stannis going to the Wall should be remembered. Saving everyone's ass there changed the political landscape too, I seem to recall.

[chrisdaw]

A king may execute and assassinate traitors as they see fit. There's nothing to justify, his kingship compelled him to execute Renly.

[Phewdi]

A king may execute and assassinate traitors as they see fit. There's nothing to justify, his kingship compelled him to execute Renly.

That's like saying: Oh, my younger brother stole my favourite pen. I'm older, so that gives me an excuse to fuck him up. NO.

[Silent_Hero]

Renly died cheaply, Stannis pulled a great tactical move and a traitor died during a war where people die....I see no problem.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Keep it classy and polite, please. Failure to do so will result in suspension of posting privileges. Thank you. [/mod]

[Pod The Impaler]

IMO, these were very generous terms. Renly knew that Stannis came before himself in the line of succession, but he thought that because he was dashing and charming (though ultimately a naive boy) that this would excuse the fact that he was usurping his brother's throne. For Stannis to offer these terms at all is incredibly gracious of him.

Now, as we all know, Renly declined and so it was not long before he was dead. But this topic is not about the terms that Stannis offered and whether or not Renly should have accepted, but about why Stannis having Renly killed isn't a reason for readers to hate him (Stannis).

1. Renly was set to die either way. He had the largest army (IIRC), he was the most loved by the people, and he was close to taking the Throne. It was all set up too perfectly, he just had to die. Now, had Tywin or another character killed him in battle, it would have made for a good scene but not a particularly interesting one. In a way, Stannis being the one responsible for his death was far more interesting, surprising and it helped to build up the plot and Stannis’ character/story arc. Let’s not forget, Renly’s death also added a great deal to the character and plots of Loras and Brienne too.

2. Stannis killing Renly wasn’t a particularly horrific event. Now, that doesn’t mean that I’m condoning fratricide because I’m not. It’s not an acceptable act. But given what we know of ASoIaF and the world it’s based in, fratricide isn’t as big a scandal as it would be today. There are issues in ASoIaF that are equally “questionable”; incest, cannibalism, racism, slavery, rape…the list goes on. With all these issues featured in ASoIaF, why does fratricide stand out more than the others? Honestly, I just think it added more to the story.

3. Having Renly killed was a good plot move, not necessarily for the story itself, but for Stannis. It showed the readers that Stannis put justice and order above all, and anyone who challenged that would pay, blood or no. Renly was his brother, but to Stannis was also a traitor and a usurper and for Stannis, it needed to be done.

Of course, Renly’s death eventually backfired on Stannis but that’s not the point made here. The point is that Stannis having Renly killed wasn’t at all as despicable as it seemed, it was the norm for ASoIaF.

4. Given that Tommen, Myrcella and Joffrey are all bastards born of incest, Stannis is the rightful King and given that Renly was in open rebellion, even after being offered generous terms, Stannis had every right to sanction his death.

I might be alone here, but I’d like to hear the views of others on the matter. Do you judge Stannis harshly for his decision, or do you understand it?

For the OP:

I'd say when it comes to plot development, there is really no other thing to say other than the plot is what it is, the characters are what they are. I don't know why someone would "debate" whether Renly's death was a deus ex machina - complaining that someone dies from magic in a fantasy book is a bit like being miffed about a random sniper in a modern war context. A hard man under the influence of some fire-worshipping witch defeats a soft man with a large army by not playing to the soft man's strengths. The whole experience, coming through Catelyn's POV, shows a few thing: 1 - what I said above already, and 2 - it is meant to contrast with Robb Stark's war, which is not only more real and brutal, but a fight about justice, not just thrones and positions. The "army of winter" compared to the "army of summer".

As you say, Renly also comes up against the fact that his claim is clearly not lawful. He chose a "might makes right" position - maybe he would have been the more beneficial king in the end, but the means of getting there also tore up a lot of his legitimacy. He could have been Stannis' Hand, or (as per the offer) his heir, or otherwise chosen to benefit by supporting his own brother. But he wanted the glory of kingship more than he wanted to fight wars and kill foes. I think he would have killed Stannis to achieve it, but I also think he felt Stannis ruling would be bad for the realm.

Stannis for his part, did not do what he did for "justice" but rather for "law" and "duty" (an important difference). Even if Stannis would have though that Renly would be a good king, with Stannis as Hand to be his hard & pragmatic advisor, would have have given up his claim to spare the realm and his family the bloodshed ? No. Stannis believed he had his larger duty to the realm, but that the only path to achieve it was to force others to submit, directly and immediately. Only Davos seems able to get through to him and change that narrow viewpoint and rigidity, but much later.

All three Baratheons seem unable to put aside their sibling rivalies and resentments, despite the fact the self-interest of their house and the well-being of the realm depended on it.

Eddard Stark gets caught up in it, because he was closer to Robert than either sullen Stannis or lighthearted Renly. Renly did not make himself much of an ally of Eddard nor seem very reliable. Stannis just refused to participate at all.

Robb Stark gets caught up in it too, because his own claim to a crown made him a target of the others, even though there was only one enemy he truly wished to fight - the Lannisters. His bannermen made him king because they felt they could not get justice from the seekers of the corrupt Iron Throne; they were not wrong. Renly might help dispose of the Lannisters, but would be corruptible and take their allegiance for granted. Stannis would punish wrongdoers, but would simply take the position that obedience was their duty, regardless of the outcome. Thus Robb - who by inclination was Stannis' best potential ally - gets set up as a king, precisely because Stannis couldn't be bothered to reach out.

In any case, Stannis killing Renly is a product of the situation - there cannot be two (or more) claimants to one throne. In the end, one claimant must either submit, or be eliminated. Stannis gave Renly an out, a generous one, but he refused to take it because he did not think Stannis was in any position to harm him.

[StannisBamfatheon]

That's like saying: Oh, my younger brother stole my favourite pen. I'm older, so that gives me an excuse to fuck him up. NO.

That is where you are wrong, as the legal heir to Robert Baratheon(since Cersei's children we're all abominable bastards), Renly owed Stannis his allegiance. As his younger brother and as a lord of westeros. Stannis was king, by declaring himself king for no other reason than "I want that!" Renly betrayed Stannis and deserved a traitors death.