Stannis, Renly and kinslaying.

[Nyrhex]

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.)

Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already grey. Darkness compared with Renly's tent, which was not only lit by candles, but was now also on fire.

"Begin to lighten" means that it's moments to sunlight. Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already "predawn gloom", when the sun is almost rising.

You make an arbitrary line that Renly still had time to back down, even when the time had come "before dawn", and Renly is not even out of the tent. The shadow does not need to come at Dawn, since that is past the deadline.

Kinslaying does not have standards in-universe. It's why Theon is called a kinslayer when he is not even a Stark, and why no one tells Robb anything about him wishing to kill Theon. Posters in this thread can say that they don't see Theon as a kinslayer, but characters in universe (Northmen and Wildlings both) do, and treat him as such.

“Might be all I want is to see you pay for crimes. The kinslayer is accursed in the eyes of gods and men.”

“The gods are blind. And men see only what they wish.”

Doubts regarding kinslaying and it's technicalities are also in universe:

Tell me, my lord … if the kinslayer is accursed, what is a father to do when one son slays another?

If he is not a kinslayer, he is the next best thing. Axell Florent’s brother had been burned by

Melisandre, Maester Aemon had informed him, yet Ser Axell had done little and less to stop it. What

sort of man can stand by idly and watch his own brother being burned alive?

“If you mean to kill me, do it and be damned for a kinslayer. Stark and Karstark are one blood.”

“My name is Snow.” “Bastard.” “Guilty. Of that, at least.”

“Say it again and I will rip your lying tongue out, kinslayer.”

...

“I have done terrible things … betrayed my own, turned my cloak, ordered the death of men who trusted

me … but I am no kinslayer.”

...

“Stark’s boys were never brothers to you, aye. We know.”

[A Man Has Said]

<snip>

You'll say anything to defend Stannis the Mannis.

Facts and logic don't matter a bit to you.

Anyway I don't get what point you're trying to make - it seems to be an exercise in eristics to me.

The thing is, Stannis the Mannis is NOT a character from the books that George RR Martin wrote.

He's fan fiction.

"There are people who are fans of 'Stannis the Mannis'..Stan the man. These are people who have a picture of Stannis which to me is not in accord with the Stannis who is actually depicted in the novels."

~ Westeros.org on Game of Thrones: Season 3 (Part 1 of 2)

(in the Davos segment, around 55:30)

You can argue until you're blue in the face trying to turn this complex character into a one-dimensional cartoon, but in doing so you are losing the complexity not only of Stannis himself, but of the entire series of books. In my opinion, it's your loss.

He's either a complex, conflicted character whose actions often belie what he says are his motives (good writing) or he's 'Stan the Man' - (a fricking literary joke.)

You can't have it both ways.

He's not the hero. He's not even one of the main characters, though I would say that he's the most significant of the secondary characters.

As far as literary complexity, he doesn't hold a candle to Jaime, or The Hound, or Brienne.

He's way better written than some of the main characters though. *cough*Daenerys*cough*

[Ingelheim]

The only fact about Stannis is that his threads are the fastest ever.

[Lord Joker]

He's either a complex, conflicted character whose actions often belie what he says are his motives (good writing) or he's 'Stan the Man' - (a fricking literary joke.)

You can't have it both ways.

And who the fuck are you to tell us how to view Stannis?

Did i miss the memo where everybody has to see a character the same way?

Why can't we see his complex character as being the hero or "Stan the Man" ?

Honestly didn't know there's only 1 way to view a character.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

And who the fuck are you to tell us how to view Stannis?

Did i miss the memo where everybody has to see a character the same way?

Why can't we see his complex character as being the hero or "Stan the Man" ?

"Stan the Man" is simple: all white, all hero, all awesome. Simple and complex are mutually exclusive.

[Nyrhex]

You'll say anything to defend Stannis the Mannis.

Facts and logic don't matter a bit to you.

Anyway I don't get what point you're trying to make - it seems to be an exercise in eristics to me.

The thing is, Stannis the Mannis is NOT a character from the books that George RR Martin wrote.

He's fan fiction.

You can argue until you're blue in the face trying to turn this complex character into a one-dimensional cartoon, but in doing so you are losing the complexity not only of Stannis himself, but of the entire series of books. In my opinion, it's your loss.

He's either a complex, conflicted character whose actions often belie what he says are his motives (good writing) or he's 'Stan the Man' - (a fricking literary joke.)

You can't have it both ways.

He's not the hero. He's not even one of the main characters, though I would say that he's the most significant of the secondary characters.

As far as literary complexity, he doesn't hold a candle to Jaime, or The Hound, or Brienne.

He's way better written than some of the main characters though. *cough*Daenerys*cough*

...

You come to a thread that asks if Stannis is a kinslayer, and start off with declaring that he is a liar who broke his own deadline (only reason to do this is to show him in a bad light, since it has zero to do with kinslaying. There is never a good time for it), claim that he directed the shadow with zero proof in your favor, and some against it, and then go on to explain why it counts as kinslaying even if he is being used by someone else

You then lable me as someone who would say anything to defend Stannis the Mannis, in an attempt to portray me as someone who would not listen to arguments, when my posts here were all arguments about kinslaying, how it is seen and how it works, and Renly's death and what we know of it and of shadowbinding. You will not listen to arguments that are better than yours, and when you run out of ammo you link to another book fan that talks of the books in an attempt at apealing to authority. That is not authority, that is another fan.

You are not only clearly biased, you are also a poor debater, turning to Ad huminem when running out of arguments. I think I'll stop talking to you for the time being, seeing as it is clearly pointless.

[A Man Has Said]

And who the fuck are you to tell us how to view Stannis?

Did i miss the memo where everybody has to see a character the same way?

Why can't we see his complex character as being the hero or "Stan the Man" ?

Honestly didn't know there's only 1 way to view a character.

Honestly, if the way you see him is "not in accord with the Stannis who is actually depicted in the novels" then you shouldn't be discussing this character that you essentially made up on this forum.

This forum is for discussing the novels, by George RR Martin. You know? In the novels, Stannis is a brittle, insufferable hypocrite whose egotistical single-minded pursuit of the throne he CLAIMS he doesn't want leads him to kill people left and right. His actions also lead directly to the destruction of the Starks, who I happen to like.

[E-Ro]

Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already grey. Darkness compared with Renly's tent, which was not only lit by candles, but was now also on fire.

"Begin to lighten" means that it's moments to sunlight. Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already "predawn gloom", when the sun is almost rising.

You make an arbitrary line that Renly still had time to back down, even when the time had come "before dawn", and Renly is not even out of the tent. The shadow does not need to come at Dawn, since that is past the deadline.

Kinslaying does not have standards in-universe. It's why Theon is called a kinslayer when he is not even a Stark, and why no one tells Robb anything about him wishing to kill Theon. Posters in this thread can say that they don't see Theon as a kinslayer, but characters in universe (Northmen and Wildlings both) do, and treat him as such.

“Might be all I want is to see you pay for crimes. The kinslayer is accursed in the eyes of gods and men.”

“The gods are blind. And men see only what they wish.”

Doubts regarding kinslaying and it's technicalities are also in universe:

Tell me, my lord … if the kinslayer is accursed, what is a father to do when one son slays another?

If he is not a kinslayer, he is the next best thing. Axell Florent’s brother had been burned by

Melisandre, Maester Aemon had informed him, yet Ser Axell had done little and less to stop it. What

sort of man can stand by idly and watch his own brother being burned alive?

“If you mean to kill me, do it and be damned for a kinslayer. Stark and Karstark are one blood.”

“My name is Snow.” “Bastard.” “Guilty. Of that, at least.”

“Say it again and I will rip your lying tongue out, kinslayer.”

...

“I have done terrible things … betrayed my own, turned my cloak, ordered the death of men who trusted

me … but I am no kinslayer.”

...

“Stark’s boys were never brothers to you, aye. We know.”

yuuuuuuup.

And who the fuck are you to tell us how to view Stannis?

Did i miss the memo where everybody has to see a character the same way?

Why can't we see his complex character as being the hero or "Stan the Man" ?

Honestly didn't know there's only 1 way to view a character.

double yuuuuup.

Reading his posts you realize there isnt much there other then complaining about "stan the man" and lack of facts and logic in other peoples posts, when his posts lack the very same. There is no analysis to what hes saying.

Edited for brevity.

[A Man Has Said]

Nyrhex, you should at least look up what ad hominem means (and how to spell it) before you start accusing someone of using it.

In fact you should probably avoid anything Latin altogether.

And just to be clear, the 'fan' that I quote above is Elio García, who is rather more than just a fan.

He started and continues to maintain the Wiki of Ice and Fire, and this site.

He is currently involved in co-authoring "The World of Ice and Fire" - essentially the encyclopedia of Westeros Universe lore.

George RR Martin has him on speed-dial, because he is so knowledgeable about the background of the novels that Martin uses him as a source.

On here, he's known as RAN, "King of the Board."

You are correct that 'appeal to authority' is in fact a logical fallacy, but as with ad hominem you misunderstand when it is applicable.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy only when the authority appealed to is not qualified in the field under discussion.

Like if you were to cite a physicist in a matter of contract law, or a famous lawyer in a matter of quantum mechanics.

So basically the only thing left for you to conclude that I'm a poor debater is that I disagree with you.

That's not much, frankly.

Happy to have cleared that up for you. :)

[Lord Joker]

Honestly, if the way you see him is "not in accord with the Stannis who is actually depicted in the novels" then you shouldn't be discussing this character that you essentially made up on this forum.

This forum is for discussing the novels, by George RR Martin. You know? In the novels, Stannis is a brittle, insufferable hypocrite whose egotistical single-minded pursuit of the throne he CLAIMS he doesn't want leads him to kill people left and right. His actions also lead directly to the destruction of the Starks, who I happen to like.

No, i'll go with viewing characters the way i want.

You do realize not everybody see's things the way you do, right? Get over it. You aren't the boss who decides how people view characters.

You know? In novels, not everybody see's characters the same way. Especially when they are "Grey".

I couldn't careless for the Starks, and don't care if you like them or not. See? To me Robb was an idiot who single handedly brought his family down by fucking a random girl, sending Theon away, then getting his entire army killed basically...yet many see him as the good guy, the hero.

But hey, i guess we all need to follow how YOU think, because apparently you have authority on how characters are, even if you follow it up by saying your bias because of the Starks.

There's a reason all the characters are grey, so we get to pick who in our mind is "good" and who isn't.

[Lord Joker]

"Stan the Man" is simple: all white, all hero, all awesome. Simple and complex are mutually exclusive.

No, i think he's Stan the Man because he ISN'T purely evil/good.

He has his moments where he can show greatness and others where he shows his dark side.

[falcotron]

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.

No, I'm saying he's not an immediate danger that would justify a police shooting.

Renly starts the altercation by declaring himself king

I don't know what definition of the word "altercation" you're using, but it's not the same one police use. First, an altercation is an immediate thingsomeone is in a shouting or shoving or punching match right now, not promising to start one tomorrow. Second, an altercation is not justification for lethal force anyway; only the immediate threat of actual harm is.

Fortunately for Stannis, the whole "resisting arrest" analogy is so far from being even remotely relevant that this doesn't matter in the slightest. Stannis is not a police officer, Renly is not being arrested, shadow babies are not regulated as the standard arms of people in position of authority,

[Batbob45]

Renly's death is both Renly and Stannis' fault. Renly wouldn't had a Tyrell army if Stannis found a way to do the inpossible, Have a truce between the Florent and the Tyrells. He could arrange his daughter to marry one of Mace's sons when she is an adult. Renly could just support his Stannis like a brother should do. If Renly was older than Stannis then Stannis would support him.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Where does all this crap about the Stannis fans come from, anyway? Its like people are saying "I don't like this character, I can't work out how anybody can like this character and his flaws are the end of the world, if you disagree with my assessment then you're a whitewasher!"

Most of us will happily admit Stannis' flaws, which we love him despite, and sometimes because of. Just because you like different characters who happened to, I don't know, not be on Stannis' side you accuse us of misreading the books. Get this, every character is flawed, and most have fans that wont admit that. We're not that unique.

Not to mention the whole "he's not a main character" diatribe, even if you are right (because predicting main characters is a proper smart move, innit) is this a reason why we shouldn't like him then? Really?

Honestly, if the way you see him is "not in accord with the Stannis who is actually depicted in the novels" then you shouldn't be discussing this character that you essentially made up on this forum.

This forum is for discussing the novels, by George RR Martin.

You're right, on both counts, but since this is you're assessment, which clearly doesn't even have a tinge of bias;

You know? In the novels, Stannis is a brittle, insufferable hypocrite whose egotistical single-minded pursuit of the throne he CLAIMS he doesn't want leads him to kill people left and right. His actions also lead directly to the destruction of the Starks, who I happen to like.

Maybe you should take your own advice, then you wouldn't get so worked up in threads like this when people have the audacity say "hey, this flawed man actually has quite a few redeeming qualities, most of his bad deeds can be given a fair context for the scenario they were in and despite them he actually is worth rooting for."

The quote goes "Its not a matter of wants, the Iron Throne is mine, by rights." Or "As King, I have a duty" Which fits in perfectly with the truly just man introduced by mention in Game of Thrones, and fits perfectly with all of his words and actions, helping to remove the hypocrite label somewhat, unless you want to be really petty and talk about the people he spared (he gave Renly an ultimatum, it would actually be hypocritical if said ultimatum didn't extend to Renly's bannermen, but whatever). His actual philosophy has its faults, but the evidence isn't there to suggest that its the ones you're mentioning, greed and ego aren't apparent, just a hefty sense of unbending duty towards his Kingdom, which like all things that can be considered good (honour, mercy) is turned on its head in this series (he assassinated his treacherous usurper brother, after all, and this can never be called a morally good deed) oh I am sorry, how rude of me, I am telling you you're misreading the books, I hate it when people do that.

Sorry, he's hard, and not a cliched typical benevolent genre hero, but a man who has been put in horrible situations, helped to put himself in horrible situations and has had to make horrible choices, we like him all the same, because in spite of everything, he is a righteous man who's motives are as pure as a Kings motives could be, even if its not always led to the best outcomes.

Sorry we can't bring up the flaws of a character we like in every thread about that character.

[falcotron]

I guess we have a loooong list of dishonorable people in the novels written by George RR Martin then.

Well, yeah, the vast majority of the characters in the novels are dishonorable people, especially by the standards of honor in the world of those novels.

That's kind of the point of characters like Ned and Stannis, to show how rare and exceptional it is for someone to even try to live by the code of honor that everyone pays lip service to, and what the consequences are. Even their friends ridicule them for it. (Of course since they're actual characters, not allegorical symbols, they aren't absolute in that regard, but they're the closest anyone comes in the story.)

Then there's people like Jaime, Beric, Brienne, Jon, and to a much lesser extent the Hound, who've been forced to recognize that it's often impossible to be honorable. When two vows contradict each other, when honoring a vow forces you to do something immoral, when you know your vow requires you to do something but can't figure out what that something is, what do you do? All of them deal with it in different ways, and most of them openly think about or talk about it.

[Gordon Ramsay Snow]

.

And just to be clear, the 'fan' that I quote above is Elio García, who is rather more than just a fan.

He started and continues to maintain the Wiki of Ice and Fire, and this site.

He is currently involved in co-authoring "The World of Ice and Fire" - essentially the encyclopedia of Westeros Universe lore.

George RR Martin has him on speed-dial, because he is so knowledgeable about the background of the novels that Martin uses him as a source.

On here, he's known as RAN, "King of the Board."

So we should just get Ran to tell us his opinion of every character (because clearly there's no other valid way of interpreting a character except the way he does), close the forum, and never discuss ASOIAF or it's characters again? Great idea!

[Sullen]

Renly's death is both Renly and Stannis' fault. Renly wouldn't had a Tyrell army if Stannis found a way to do the inpossible, Have a truce between the Florent and the Tyrells. He could arrange his daughter to marry one of Mace's sons when she is an adult. Renly could just support his Stannis like a brother should do. If Renly was older than Stannis then Stannis would support him.

Marrying Shireen to one of Mace's sons would not do.

Stannis doesn't like the Tyrells and the Tyrells don't like him since the siege of Storm's End, and besides, suffice that Stannis has a son and the whole deal is moot as Shireen never becomes Queen. Not to mention that this arrangement implies that the Tyrells have to wait several years before they get their King consort, while they have a consort automatically with both Joffrey AND Renly.

Stannis allying with the Tyrells was simply never happening, they are natural enemies. And whoever the Tyrells support, wins.

[Lee-Sensei]

Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already grey. Darkness compared with Renly's tent, which was not only lit by candles, but was now also on fire.

"Begin to lighten" means that it's moments to sunlight. Catelyn arrives at camp when it is already "predawn gloom", when the sun is almost rising.

You make an arbitrary line that Renly still had time to back down, even when the time had come "before dawn", and Renly is not even out of the tent. The shadow does not need to come at Dawn, since that is past the deadline.

Kinslaying does not have standards in-universe. It's why Theon is called a kinslayer when he is not even a Stark, and why no one tells Robb anything about him wishing to kill Theon. Posters in this thread can say that they don't see Theon as a kinslayer, but characters in universe (Northmen and Wildlings both) do, and treat him as such.

“Might be all I want is to see you pay for crimes. The kinslayer is accursed in the eyes of gods and men.”

“The gods are blind. And men see only what they wish.”

Doubts regarding kinslaying and it's technicalities are also in universe:

Tell me, my lord … if the kinslayer is accursed, what is a father to do when one son slays another?

If he is not a kinslayer, he is the next best thing. Axell Florent’s brother had been burned by

Melisandre, Maester Aemon had informed him, yet Ser Axell had done little and less to stop it. What

sort of man can stand by idly and watch his own brother being burned alive?

“If you mean to kill me, do it and be damned for a kinslayer. Stark and Karstark are one blood.”

“My name is Snow.” “Bastard.” “Guilty. Of that, at least.”

“Say it again and I will rip your lying tongue out, kinslayer.”

...

“I have done terrible things … betrayed my own, turned my cloak, ordered the death of men who trusted

me … but I am no kinslayer.”

...

“Stark’s boys were never brothers to you, aye. We know.”

Again. Theon and Robb aren't kinslayers. That was a clear case of reaching.

[Nyrhex]

Again. Theon and Robb aren't kinslayers. That was a clear case of reaching.

Again.

Theon is called a kinslayer by Northmen and Wildlings alike. This is in the text.

Robb is called a kinslayer by Rickard Karstark, Alys and Cregan Karstark call Jon kin, with Cregan calling Jon a kinslayer if he kills him. This is in the text.

How do you define a kinslayer? Why do you think that definition is better? Elaborate.

[Lee-Sensei]

Again.

Theon is called a kinslayer by Northmen and Wildlings alike. This is in the text.

Robb is called a kinslayer by Rickard Karstark, Alys and Cregan Karstark call Jon kin, with Cregan calling Jon a kinslayer if he kills him. This is in the text.

How do you define a kinslayer? Why do you think that definition is better? Elaborate.

Exactly. They're called kinslayers by people who are hardly unbiased.

If Ned killed Theon, would they consider him a kinslayer? Somehow I doubt it. And if every distant cousin is considered kin, nobody would be able to kill anybody else.

For our purposes, I'd say that kin consists of third degree relatives and closer. That means siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, first cousins, grand uncles, grand aunts and great grandparents.

After all, even Dany and Viserys don't call Robert a kinslayer.