A Balanced Review of Show Stannis [Book Spoilers]

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Can we please have an intelligent discussion without the trollish and absurd posts.

Thinking Stannis is a villain who's never done a single good act is about as stupid as people claiming Eddard Stark is still alive.

I'll never understand this forum and how people pull these odd ideas from there head as fact.

are you sure it is trolling? Or some of this posters are influenced by D&D portrait? I guess this is the whole point of the thread.

You wont see many or any posters discussing whenever Stannis is or is not a villian in the book forums. Not even from the ones who dislike him.

[Ran]

George is specific about what Stannis is being righteous about: he's fighting the Great War, so "in spite of everything" (i.e. burnings, kinslaying, blood magic, fascist absolutism) he's at least committing his various acts towards a good cause. George contrasts Stannis to various rulers -- Henry VII, Tiberius, Louis XI -- whom are popularly understood to have performed various acts of misrule solely for personal aggrandizement. Stannis isn't acting selfishly following the realization of what the true war is.

So the "Stannis is righteous" thing can be rather overplayed. It just means that he's an asshole, but he's our asshole.

[Darkbringer]

George is specific about what Stannis is being righteous about: he's fighting the Great War, so "in spite of everything" (i.e. burnings, kinslaying, blood magic, fascist absolutism) he's at least committing his various acts towards a good cause. George contrasts Stannis to various rulers -- Henry VII, Tiberius, Louis XI -- whom are popularly understood to have performed various acts of misrule solely for personal aggrandizement. Stannis isn't acting selfishly following the realization of what the true war is.So the "Stannis is righteous" thing can be rather overplayed. It just means that he's an asshole, but he's our asshole.

Yeah, but the quote was 'so, ispite of everything, he's still a righteous man, and not just..(those guys you mentioned)" So he still a righteous man, on balance. That's how I read it, anyway

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Yeah, but the quote was 'so, ispite of everything, he's still a righteous man, and not just..(those guys you mentioned)" So he still a righteous man, on balance. That's how I read it, anyway

Basically this. He is a RIGHTEOUS man is the main point at the end of the day.

[Spotted Cat]

George is specific about what Stannis is being righteous about: he's fighting the Great War, so "in spite of everything" (i.e. burnings, kinslaying, blood magic, fascist absolutism) he's at least committing his various acts towards a good cause. George contrasts Stannis to various rulers -- Henry VII, Tiberius, Louis XI -- whom are popularly understood to have performed various acts of misrule solely for personal aggrandizement. Stannis isn't acting selfishly following the realization of what the true war is.

So the "Stannis is righteous" thing can be rather overplayed. It just means that he's an asshole, but he's our asshole.

yes he is fighting the righteous war, but if he has to burn babies to win it, whats the difference between human and others?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

yes he is fighting the righteous war, but if he has to burn babies to win it, whats the difference between human and others?

Tell me how many babies he has burnt?

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

Basically this. He is a RIGHTEOUS man is the main point at the end of the day.

Certainly, and yet the depth GRRM puts into his characters means that righteousness is not necessarily always a virtue - just as Ned Stark's honour was his downfall. This is set up with the Robert = steel, Stannis = iron, Renly = copper description. Stannis's actions at the Battle of Castle Black demonstrate the power and strength of character that can be drawn from righteousness. His actions on other issues demonstrates where it is a flaw just as iron is flawed and not suitable for all purposes.

[Ran]

Spotted Cat,

That's the question, isn't it? Stannis is an "ends justify the means" sort of guy. He managed to work his way around killing Edric -- just barely -- with Davos's help, and that's solely because Davos convinces him he should focus on the Great War and not the war for the crown, so he doesn't need to kill Edric now.

But then look at how Jon Snow acts: he thinks that if Melisandre convinces Stannis that Aemon's blood, or Aemon Steelsong's blood, would help win the Great War, we're right back to where we were. Stannis would hate it, but in his mind the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and if push comes to shove he will kill an innocent if he believes it will save many more innocents. He hasn't changed at all, he's simply reconfigured his priorities which makes him "righteous" in a very narrow sense.

[Spotted Cat]

Tell me how many babies he has burnt?

What do you think the puppet we see in the show will do to dallas baby?

Mel says BURN, Stannis says INFIDEL and selyse says did u see his soul ? (the book stannis might not, but the show stannis would. EASILY)

Spotted Cat,

That's the question, isn't it? Stannis is an "ends justify the means" sort of guy. He managed to work his way around killing Edric -- just barely -- with Davos's help, and that's solely because Davos convinces him he should focus on the Great War and not the war for the crown, so he doesn't need to kill Edric now.

But then look at how Jon Snow acts: he thinks that if Melisandre convinces Stannis that Aemon's blood, or Aemon Steelsong's blood, would help win the Great War, we're right back to where we were. Stannis would hate it, but in his mind the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and if push comes to shove he will kill an innocent if he believes it will save many more innocents. He hasn't changed at all, he's simply reconfigured his priorities which makes him "righteous" in a very narrow sense.

He can fight cant he? fight to the last man.

use dragon glass or valaryan steel etc. thats how you become righteous. I really doubt he is the AA so even if he burns, no way any dragons would respond.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I don't get one thing. Stannis gets blamed for the "crimes" that Melisandre commits but then doesn't get credit for Davos' noble work and good deeds. He is the one who has decided to surround himself with a person who gives him the hard truth, unlike Dany and many other Kings, who surrounded themselves with yes-men.

What do you think the puppet we see in the show will do to dallas baby?
Mel says BURN, Stannis says INFIDEL and selyse says did u see his soul ? (the book stannis might not, but the show stannis would. EASILY)

Yeah that's the point. I think ShowStannis might even execute Sam for being fat.

[jons nissa]

Spotted Cat,

That's the question, isn't it? Stannis is an "ends justify the means" sort of guy. He managed to work his way around killing Edric -- just barely -- with Davos's help, and that's solely because Davos convinces him he should focus on the Great War and not the war for the crown, so he doesn't need to kill Edric now.

But then look at how Jon Snow acts: he thinks that if Melisandre convinces Stannis that Aemon's blood, or Aemon Steelsong's blood, would help win the Great War, we're right back to where we were. Stannis would hate it, but in his mind the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and if push comes to shove he will kill an innocent if he believes it will save many more innocents. He hasn't changed at all, he's simply reconfigured his priorities which makes him "righteous" in a very narrow sense.

jon was also so afraid for dalla's child that he switched it for gilly's. grrm is showing that not much has changed even if stannis has chosen to fight the fight of the north rather than just the fight for the throne.

[Spotted Cat]

ok this is something i really dont understand.
the "waking of dragons" , why didnt Mel just wake her bloody dragons with renlys blood?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

jon was also so afraid for dalla's child that he switched it for gilly's. grrm is showing that not much has changed even if stannis has chosen to fight the fight of the north rather than just the fight for the throne.

Well that's one PoV.

Here are two contrasting PoV's:

One from Stannis himself:

Clayton Suggs - "A sacrifice will prove our faith still burns true, Sire."

Godry the Giantslayer - "The old gods of the north have sent this storm upon us. Only R'hllor can end it. We must give him an unbeliever."

Stannis - "Half my army is made up of unbelievers. I will have no burnings. Pray harder.

One from whom some people think controls Stannis:

In truth, the young lord commander and her king had more in common than either one would ever be willing to admit. Stannis had been a younger son living in the shadow of his elder brother, just as Jon Snow, bastard-born, had always been eclipsed by his trueborn sibling, the fallen hero men had called the Young Wolf. Both men were unbelievers by nature, mistrustful, suspicious. The only gods they truly worshipped were honor and duty.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

AA legend still is about the end justifiy mean after all... Thats the point of Nissa Nissa.

Every main character has this logic anyway. Qhorin when he makes men stand to let other scape, Jon when he kills Qhorin, sends explorers that wont come back, etc..... Allmost every single character does this one way or the other. Is there a big difference between this and sending your infantery as bait to Tywin in a battle they cant win?

It is still not right, but this is not what differences Stannis to other characters. Because in that way all of them are "assholes".

Stannis might be one of the few (Bran, Jon) who uses the end justify means logic for righteous ends, and not just for themselves, family or whatever as everybody else does. This is what makes Stannis different. Not being an asshole.

Problem is D&D are only giving us whitewashed characters or villians. Since besides Jaime all the "grey" characters were screwed.

So where you put Stan?

[The Drunkard]

ok this is something i really dont understand.

the "waking of dragons" , why didnt Mel just wake her bloody dragons with renlys blood?

I imagine sacrifices require blood from a live person, or at least that's what she believes. There would be no reason not to give Edric a quick, painless death otherwise.

jon was also so afraid for dalla's child that he switched it for gilly's. grrm is showing that not much has changed even if stannis has chosen to fight the fight of the north rather than just the fight for the throne.

Stannis had ample time to burn any of the KB hosts at the Wall, or even seize them for future use. He didn't. Jon fearing it doesn't make it true, especially when these fears are based on rumours and the words of feverish queen's men, who, mind you, seem to think Stannis will burn any KB host he gets his hand on.

Ran, do you know why it is that Show Stannis hasn't left for the Wall? The books gave a sense of immediacy that doesn't seem to be there on the show, even though you'd expect the show to be speedier given the letter was about the immediate threat of the Others rather than the wildlings.

[Ran]

Explained in the next episode, more or less. And last season, come to think of it.

[jons nissa]

One from whom some people think controls Stannis:

In truth, the young lord commander and her king had more in common than either one would ever be willing to admit. Stannis had been a younger son living in the shadow of his elder brother, just as Jon Snow, bastard-born, had always been eclipsed by his trueborn sibling, the fallen hero men had called the Young Wolf. Both men were unbelievers by nature, mistrustful, suspicious. The only gods they truly worshipped were honor and duty.

and she begins her quote with:

He does not love me, will never love me, but he will make use of me. Well and good. Melisandre had danced the same dance with Stannis Baratheon, back in the beginning.

no one says stannis has taken r'hollor into his heart but he has bet the farm on melisandre, understandably, and is willing to talk the talk and walk the walk, until the bitter end, regardless of what she asks of him. mel understands that and jon understood it as well. and just as mel produces "miracles" to convince stannis, she tried to do the same with jon.

Stannis had ample time to burn any of the KB hosts at the Wall, or even seize them for future use. He didn't. Jon fearing it doesn't make it true, especially when these fears are based on rumours and the words of feverish queen's men, who, mind you, seem to think Stannis will burn any KB host he gets his hand on.

the point is jon believed it was enough of threat to act proactively, not that it was already on stannis' to do list.

[The Drunkard]

Explained in the next episode, more or less. And last season, come to think of it.

Salladhor Saan's departure?

the point is jon believed it was enough of threat to act proactively, not that it was already on stannis' to do list.

Oh yes, sorry. I agree with that.

[Ran]

As people are aware of some of the plot lines this season, I'll just say it:

Stannis basically has nothing left on the show. Sallador Saan leaving last season leaves him lacking in ships, he barely has troops, etc. He needs gold with which to buy these things. I admit to not being strictly sure when they will make it plain that he means to use this to go north -- it's not actually obvious in the next episode -- but we know that somehow that will happen, so I suppose it will be explained when he visits the Iron Bank.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Thanks Ran.