Stannis, Renly and kinslaying.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Yeah we are not talking about a just execution here, but the killing of an enemy combatant. You might find some precedent for it somewhere.

[Winter's Knight]

Stannis/Mel was simply the more pragmatic party in this case. Renly would've done a night raid, but he's a Knight of Summer and wanted his glorious, heroic battle. Mel knew defeat was imminent so she took action and took Renly out of the picture. In the game of thrones you win or you die. Renly died, much like Ned did, hoping that his enemies would play by the same rules as him.

Ned died because he was daft. Renly died because sorcery. The only pragmatism involved was that Stannis feared Renly would defeat him at KL, as per Mel's prediction. By killing Renly he made her prediction come true.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Who would be Stannis's champion though? I have no doubt he himself could beat Renly in combat but Renly would call on Loras or Brienne and then Stannis would be fucked, and I can't think of a knight in Stannis's service who is really "up there" as a fighter.

If Renly picked a champion, any champion, he'd be the one who was truly fucked. Appearances matter a lot in all this kingly business. Why would Renly make a detour to lift Stannis' siege, instead of taking care of King's Landing first? Why Stannis, in turn, would insist of taking Storm's End first, instead of racing to the capital? The same reason: appearances. From pragmatic reasons, Storm's End could wait, in both cases. From PR reasons, the situation needed to be dealt with.

Now imagine Renly, a big, tall, strong knight in his prime, trying to sell himself as Robert Baratheon version 2.0, hiding behind a champion. That would be a huge blow to his image. He could've refused to fight on the grounds that "are you nuckin' futs? I have thirty thousand heavy cavalry, and you have at most six thousand of this-and-that", and that would be understandable (similarly how Stannis later refused Penrose's offer). But accept a single combat and delegate the task? He could never live that down.

[Bronn Urgandy]

There is something called trial by combat. Or even trial by seven in which we had seen two brothers fighting for the opposite causes and one ended up killing the other unintentionally or not. I think a fair battle between the opponents is as just as these. Stannis could have offered a trial by combat or a trial by seven. Or he might try to beat him in a full scale battle. But he only said "bend the knee or else..."

They're at war, this isnt Police work. Trials are luxuries that arent available. They are two brothers fighting, one has a lawful claim and wont back down, the other has the army and wont back down. One used his tool effectively (heheh) the other didnt. So it ended like it ended. The fact that from a lawful perspective Stannis had more right than Renly is a happy co-incidence, because its not like he could've taken him into custody at that point.

[Talleyrand]

Who would be Stannis's champion though?(1) I have no doubt he himself could beat Renly in combat but Renly would call on Loras or Brienne and then Stannis would be fucked, and (2) I can't think of a knight in Stannis's service who is really "up there" as a fighter.

1. How? Neither brother is commented on for the particular skills at arms or lack there of - they're high lords and children of an LP so we can at least assume they had some good training. Renly takes part in the tourneys at least - though all we see is him being beaten by Sandor, which doesn't tell us much cause I don't think we've actually seen anyone beat Sandor.

2. I think were this is most telling is when he sends the Shadowbaby after Penrose. I mean they obviously take their toll on him physically so I would have assumed they would be a sort of last resort solution. So by sending Shadowbaby I would have thought that either means Stannis has a healthy respect for Penrose's skills or a lack of faith of the skills of the men sworn to him.

[hollowcrown]

1. How? Neither brother is commented on for the particular skills at arms or lack there of - they're high lords and children of an LP so we can at least assume they had some good training. Renly takes part in the tourneys at least - though all we see is him being beaten by Sandor, which doesn't tell us much cause I don't think we've actually seen anyone beat Sandor.

2. I think were this is most telling is when he sends the Shadowbaby after Penrose. I mean they obviously take their toll on him physically so I would have assumed they would be a sort of last resort solution. So by sending Shadowbaby I would have thought that either means Stannis has a healthy respect for Penrose's skills or a lack of faith of the skills of the men sworn to him.

1. Stannis just seems like the kind of guy who has seen more combat situations than Renly - the Greyjoy rebellion etc. however Renly has only participated in tournaments

2. That's either a literary device so we know how shadowbabies are birthed, or the fact Penrose is a strong and dangerous fighter, or it was a bluff, or Stannis doesn't have the time and men needed to complete a siege.

[falcotron]

You do know that even in modern times when a criminal resists arrest they are killed without trial, right? Sure the cops will try to force that person into submission with no lethal methods, but the second the perp pulls a weapon he is a dead man.

Renly resisted arrest, so he was put down like the common thug he was.

That's beyond ridiculous.

(Note: I'm assuming you're talking about the US; I'm sure things are different in, say, Singapore, much less North Korea.)

Resisting arrest does not justify lethal force. Running away, struggling to get out of your handcuffs, or even offering a fake ID is resisting arrest, but that doesn't mean they can shoot you, or even use excessive force; they're only allowed to use any reasonable force necessary to effect the arrest.

The only time police are allowed to use lethal force if you pose an immediate danger to others (whether the police themselves, or civilians). And even then, there are pretty strict regulations in every jurisdiction, and there's almost always an investigation after the fact to determine whether they operated within those regulations.

Meanwhile, if the cops show up at your door and say "Turn yourself in by morning or we'll break in and take you in," and then they shoot you through the window before morning, you were not killed resisting arrest, you were murdered under color of authority. It doesn't matter if your response was "You'd better bring it, because you'll never take me alive." If they told you they were coming back in the morning, there is no arrest in progress for you to resist.

[Mithras]

They're at war, this isnt Police work. Trials are luxuries that arent available. They are two brothers fighting, one has a lawful claim and wont back down, the other has the army and wont back down. One used his tool effectively (heheh) the other didnt. So it ended like it ended. The fact that from a lawful perspective Stannis had more right than Renly is a happy co-incidence, because its not like he could've taken him into custody at that point.

Legal claim only matters if you have enough swords to press it. The notion of trial by combat is very similar to this. The outcome of a trial by combat satisfies the majority of society, which can be accepted as justice in a medieval environment.

Dunk committed a serious crime by kicking the shit out of Aerion. A fair trial was conducted and even after the Hand and the heir apparent was dead in the process, people believed that the gods have spoken and justice was served.

Robert committed a far more serious crime by rising against the lawful king. He fought his battles on the field and won the throne with his warhammer. What he did was no less treason than what Renly did yet Robert succeeded. From a lawful perspective, the fact that Robert (in fact Ned) was right to rise against Aerys is a happy coincidence.

Killing Renly with a shadow assassin was CRAVEN, UNJUST and ULTIMATELY MORE HARMFUL TO HIM compared to bending that stiff neck of his or even dying in the battle against Renly. When it comes to Penrose, Stannis cannot even dare to accept one-on-one battle. This is MORE CRAVEN of him. Surely the Lord's Chosen cannot lose despite the disadvantage in numbers against Renly or in the duel against Penrose right?

That's beyond ridiculous.

(Note: I'm assuming you're talking about the US; I'm sure things are different in, say, Singapore, much less North Korea.)

Resisting arrest does not justify lethal force. Running away, struggling to get out of your handcuffs, or even offering a fake ID is resisting arrest, but that doesn't mean they can shoot you, or even use excessive force; they're only allowed to use any reasonable force necessary to effect the arrest.

The only time police are allowed to use lethal force if you pose an immediate danger to others (whether the police themselves, or civilians). And even then, there are pretty strict regulations in every jurisdiction, and there's almost always an investigation after the fact to determine whether they operated within those regulations.

Meanwhile, if the cops show up at your door and say "Turn yourself in by morning or we'll break in and take you in," and then they shoot you through the window before morning, you were not killed resisting arrest, you were murdered under color of authority. It doesn't matter if your response was "You'd better bring it, because you'll never take me alive." If they told you they were coming back in the morning, there is no arrest in progress for you to resist.

:agree:

[Bronn Urgandy]

Legal claim only matters if you have enough swords to press it. The notion of trial by combat is very similar to this. The outcome of a trial by combat satisfies the majority of society, which can be accepted as justice in a medieval environment.

Dunk committed a serious crime by kicking the shit out of Aerion. A fair trial was conducted and even after the Hand and the heir apparent was dead in the process, people believed that the gods have spoken and justice was served.

Robert committed a far more serious crime by rising against the lawful king. He fought his battles on the field and won the throne with his warhammer. What he did was no less treason than what Renly did yet Robert succeeded. From a lawful perspective, the fact that Robert (in fact Ned) was right to rise against Aerys is a happy coincidence.

Killing Renly with a shadow assassin was CRAVEN, UNJUST and ULTIMATELY MORE HARMFUL TO HIM compared to bending that stiff neck of his or even dying in the battle against Renly. When it comes to Penrose, Stannis cannot even dare to accept one-on-one battle. This is MORE CRAVEN of him. Surely the Lord's Chosen cannot lose despite the disadvantage in numbers against Renly or in the duel against Penrose right?

So you're comparing outright war with trial by combat, or trials in general?

Robert won a war, yeah he, Ned and Arryn had good reason to rebel, but they still could've lost this war, would it have been justice if they did? Was it justice that they won, considering the fates of Ellia Martell and her children? Deaths which were considered necessary by some. No, it was war, maybe their cause was just, but they were going to pull out all of the stops to win this war, even if the tricks were dirty.

Nope, this post is just a poor cover for the silly notion that "its not the business of commanding officers to fire on each other". Are you implying that you wouldn't have killed Napoleon, Hitler, Hannibal, Genghis Khan or anybody else that presented a huge threat to your powerbase given the chance? And instead you'd have given them the opportunity to defend themselves and end it "fairly" by commiting thousands to their deaths in "honourable battle" despite the fact that each of these would've completely stomped you into the mud in such a scenario?

As I said earlier, Stannis had the better lawful claim, Renly had the bigger army, Stannis had an ace up his sleeve and he used it. Stannis had the more just cause, and he won, he could've lost, but he didn't. You're implying that he should've fought on Renly's terms, against Renly's army, to give poor little usurping Renly a fairer chance, because that would've been justice?

[Winterfell is Burning]

Nice use of caps. Heres the line of succession as Renly knows it; Robert - Joffrey - Tommen - Myrcella - Stannis - Renly. There it is, and no amount of "but please miss, Stannis hadnt crowned himself yet" makes that untrue. What if any of the following that Renly queue jumps after hes let them live has children? Those children or their children, having a better claim than Renlys children may rebel, declaring themselves King. They might even prove popular enough.

Much like Renly, you're only thinking short term, but a monarch has to consolidate his dynasty. The Tyrells want their kids on the Throne, what happens when Loras whispers that inevitable truth in Renlys ear? Aemon joined the NW so Eggs enemies couldnt use him, because he can grasp the reality of a situation, if Renly lets all those people live, his dynasty will not be safe. Just because Renly never said it, doesnt mean Stannis, Joffrey or any of the others are wrong for feeling this way.

This. Thank you for use basic common sense.

That happens when said younger brother is ambitious, or influenced by advisers with axe to grind, or whatever. It happened with Daemon Blackfyre, but he lost, so he's a "traitor". It happened with Aegon II, Aegon for a change won, so somehow Rhaenyra is a "traitor" (Stannis' own logic, for bonus hilarity). Had Renly won, undoubtedly Stannis would be a "traitor", too.

Daemon Blackfyre was the younger brother.

Aegon II was the eldest male and anyway the war continued until he died.

Anyway, do you know what happened to Rhaenyra, Daemon Blackfyre and Aegon II? THEY WERE KILLED. Why would Stannis think the same wouldn't happen to him?.

Move Renly aside for a moment and the basic issue is that Stannis seems to fundamentally misunderstand the feudal dynamic. In a conflict of feudal succession, a king needs his Barons much more than the Barons need the King. Jon Arryn/Ned/Robert understood that.

Stannis seems to step fully formed from the pages of the Sun King, or similar. The things he despises in Robert and Renly are essential to a feudal king. Unless you want to try it King John's way x 10, which needless to say strikes me as a sure fire way to lose. He is NOT an absolute monarch, even if he wins. But I think he thinks he is. Not kidding, he seems to be closer to Aerys than any other Westeros model.

He has no dragons, has little time for diplomacy, for forming mutually beneficial relationships, for...well, politics, essentially. That's a rather black hole sized flaw for a political leader not backed by Dragons or even centuries of fore bearers.

That's what Robert got, Renly got, what Robb got, what Aegon seems to get, and what Balon And Stannis don't get. Being popular isn't superfluous, it is the essence of feudal leadership.

He'd make a great Hanging judge or tank general or w/e, but as a feudal leader he's likely to be a disaster...and we haven't even touched on the religious stuff.

Jon has taught him some basics in a short amount of time, so maybe there's a glimmer of hope.

Maybe or maybe not, but none of this changes the fact that Stannis had more than enough reason to believe he would be murdered or at least sent to the Wall if Renly took over the Iron Throne, so he had reason to kill him.

[E-Ro]

That's beyond ridiculous.

(Note: I'm assuming you're talking about the US; I'm sure things are different in, say, Singapore, much less North Korea.)

Resisting arrest does not justify lethal force. Running away, struggling to get out of your handcuffs, or even offering a fake ID is resisting arrest, but that doesn't mean they can shoot you, or even use excessive force; they're only allowed to use any reasonable force necessary to effect the arrest.

The only time police are allowed to use lethal force if you pose an immediate danger to others (whether the police themselves, or civilians). And even then, there are pretty strict regulations in every jurisdiction, and there's almost always an investigation after the fact to determine whether they operated within those regulations.

Meanwhile, if the cops show up at your door and say "Turn yourself in by morning or we'll break in and take you in," and then they shoot you through the window before morning, you were not killed resisting arrest, you were murdered under color of authority. It doesn't matter if your response was "You'd better bring it, because you'll never take me alive." If they told you they were coming back in the morning, there is no arrest in progress for you to resist.

Are you implying that renly was not a threat to stannis and his men? FFs, he says he is going to fight and kill people for this.

Renly starts the altercation by declaring himself king and starving the Capitol, so the analogy of cops showing up and killing someone in their home doesn't work.

Furthermore, stannis said he would attack at dawn, that's the time renly died. So yeah.

[A Man Has Said]

Let's all just back off of the minutiae and bickering to consider the reason that kinslaying is so taboo in Westeros, or in any feudal system.

The premise behind a hereditary aristocracy/monarchy is called Divine Right of Kings. The authority of the ruling dynasty, and that of their aristocratic supporters, is based on the idea that GOD has SELECTED them before birth to rule over their fellow man. In practical terms God does this by having them born lawfully into the correct family; House of Windsor, House Hapsburg, House Romanov, House Bourbon, etc.

The secondary premise is that they have inherited, along with the power and privilege, certain characteristics that make them fit to rule. Because God wouldn't put a family of douchenozzles on the throne either deliberately or inadvertently, would He? He's God after all, and infallible. The aristocracy are Noble, Forthright, Just, Benevolent and so forth. It's in their blood. And the monarchs are even more so than are the Lords.

(However, being an atheist, I personally don't believe any of this and think the historical record shows quite a few douchenozzles to have occupied quite a few thrones.)

NOTE that in-universe kinslaying is only shown to be anathema in the upper classes. The lower classes don't even have family names, so who they are kin to just doesn't matter.

So the reason that kinslaying is so forbidden is that by killing your brother or cousin, you're implicitly declaring that your 'noble' blood, which is the same as that of your victim, isn't so special after all. You're just an arrogant douchenozzle. There's nothing noble about you at all, you're no different from the churls and villeins. It undermines the whole structure that feudal society is based on. Which anyway is a big fat lie, so you really don't want to call it into question if you can help it.

[A Man Has Said]

<snip>

Furthermore, stannis said he would attack at dawn, that's the time renly died. So yeah.

That is clearly untrue, according to the text. Catelyn IV, "A Clash of Kings" (Chapter 33)

“Your Grace,” Mathis Rowan said with a sideways glance at Catelyn. “As I was saying, our battles are well drawn up. Why wait for daybreak? Sound the advance.”

“And have it said that I won by treachery, with an unchivalrous attack? Dawn was the chosen hour.”

[there is just over a page of dialogue after this, which takes less than a minute to read. If you were to script it into a scene with actors reading the lines, it could be as little as half a minute]

“I beg you in the name of the Mother,” Catelyn began when a sudden gust of wind flung open the door of the tent. She thought she glimpsed movement, but when she turned her head, it was only the king’s shadow shifting against the silken walls. She heard Renly begin a jest, his shadow moving, lifting its sword, black on green, candles guttering, shivering, something was

queer, wrong, and then she saw Renly’s sword still in its scabbard, sheathed still, but the shadowsword...

I would say it's clearly established IN THE TEXT that the attack on Renly took place before dawn.

In future, could you restrict your unsupported opinions to something in the novels?

This forum is called A Song of Ice and Fire: The Novels

Those novels were written by George RR Martin.

[Sullen]

Shows his niavete. Stannis fought a war to put Robert on the Throne, is he going to turn his back on his heir, whether that be Joffrey or himself?

Of course it shows his naivete when it comes to Stannis, but the point was that Renly wasn't planning to murder Stannis when he crowned himself to take out the Lannisters, unlike Stannis, who spends his time on Dragonstone with Mel planning Renly's death before making his claim. (And attacking Storm's End)

[Mulled Wino]

1. How? Neither brother is commented on for the particular skills at arms or lack there of - they're high lords and children of an LP so we can at least assume they had some good training. Renly takes part in the tourneys at least - though all we see is him being beaten by Sandor, which doesn't tell us much cause I don't think we've actually seen anyone beat Sandor.

2. I think were this is most telling is when he sends the Shadowbaby after Penrose. I mean they obviously take their toll on him physically so I would have assumed they would be a sort of last resort solution. So by sending Shadowbaby I would have thought that either means Stannis has a healthy respect for Penrose's skills or a lack of faith of the skills of the men sworn to him.

2) This is all explained in the book. Not the first time trial by combat was refused by someone in a much more powerful position.

[Mulled Wino]

That is clearly untrue, according to the text. Catelyn IV, "A Clash of Kings" (Chapter 33)

I would say it's clearly established IN THE TEXT that the attack on Renly took place before dawn.

In future, could you restrict your unsupported opinions to something in the novels?

This forum is called A Song of Ice and Fire: The Novels

Those novels were written by George RR Martin.

I don't get the point, there's plenty of times where battle took place at times other than when it was explicitly stated. Renly is a moron for being so cocky that he would figure that a clearly outnumbered enemy would simply wait for him to attack.

[A Man Has Said]

I don't get the point, there's plenty of times where battle took place at times other than when it was explicitly stated. Renly is a moron for being so cocky that he would figure that a clearly outnumbered enemy would simply wait for him to attack.

My point is that this forum is supposedly for discussion of the novels written by George RR Martin, not someone's edited version of them.

If you want to start your own forum for the 'Stannis the Mannis' version, you are welcome to do that.

Renly is not a moron so much as Stannis is dishonourable for breaking an agreement that he had made.

As leader (he would say King) of all his forces, they are either bound by his agreement or his leadership means shit.

That would also apply to the Red Witch.

[Nyrhex]

That is clearly untrue, according to the text. Catelyn IV, "A Clash of Kings" (Chapter 33)

I would say it's clearly established IN THE TEXT that the attack on Renly took place before dawn.

You are aware that that was the exact time stated?

Stannis tells Renly to come to him "before dawn". Renly has until that moment to reconsider. Renly did not die at the stroke of midnight, he died moments before mounting up and sounding the advance. The distance between the camps is not that great, Catelyn can see individual torches moving. The point Rowan and Tarly are trying to make is that they should attack now, and not in a few moments when the sun is directly in thier eyes - thus the sun will rise when they are already in battle, and not right before they make contact. Renly downplays the importance of seeing the enemy right before contact, and orders to wait the extra minute or so until the sun rises. Catelyn returns to camp when it is "predawn gloom", everything is grey because the sunrise is moments away. The scene at the tent takes a couple of minutes. Catelyn leaves Renly's tent no more than a minute after Renly dies (men in shout range did not have time to arrive), and the sun is rising behind Catelyn and Brienne when they leave the tent.

The time of death is exactly the dead-line Renly had.

This thread is about the act of kinslaying. Not trying to portray Stannis as a liar for killing Renly before Renly had run out of time. There is no logic in even trying to debate this - does it matter if Stannis killed Renly a minute or an hour before dawn? Only if one is to try and argue that Renly still had time to back down. Clearly, from the text, Renly and his army are ready for battle moments before dawn. So after having the rest of the evening and all night, Renly did not back down. But this is not the question of the thread.

We are left with the question of kinslaying, how does it work, is what we read here kinslaying or not.

[Mulled Wino]

My point is that this forum is supposedly for discussion of the novels written by George RR Martin, not someone's edited version of them.

If you want to start your own forum for the 'Stannis the Mannis' version, you are welcome to do that.

Renly is not a moron so much as Stannis is dishonourable for breaking an agreement that he had made.

As leader (he would say King) of all his forces, they are either bound by his agreement or his leadership means shit.

That would also apply to the Red Witch.

I guess we have a loooong list of dishonorable people in the novels written by George RR Martin then. I can presume that you don't like any characters in ASOIAF per this post.

HUH????? His forces are bound by his agreements? I guess you were all for the pillaging of the Celtigars seeing as he agreed to turn his back on his true king and side with Joff, so his people would be bound by the same agreement.

[A Man Has Said]

“Brienne, with me,” Catelyn commanded. The girl was not slow to see the chance. A slash, and the green silk parted.

They stepped out into darkness and the chill of dawn.

[...]

The night air smelled of rain. Behind them, the king’s pavilion was well ablaze, flames rising high against the dark.

[...]

The nightfires had burned low, and as the east began to lighten...

It sounds very much to me like it was still dark, therefore night, despite the reference to the 'chill of dawn.'

Maybe that's to point out that it is the coldest hour of the night, which is typically just before sunrise.

A little later the east begins to lighten, which happens from 15 minutes to half an hour before the sun actually rises.

It is still technically nighttime, therefore Stannis' agreement is broken. It's treachery.

Anyway, it's all moot in the context of the subject of this thread.

Whether honourable or dishonourable, whether treachery or not, it's still kinslaying by in-universe standards.

(as pointed out by several other posters with regard to Bloodraven, etc.)