Was Renly's Murder Justified?

[The silver dragon]

I like how it's Renly that must throw away his alliances to back Stannis and still likely lose, instead of Stannis giving up his obsession with birthright to back Renly and win.

Renly is so damned unreasonable.

you are right.

he should have let his brother deal with the lannister's and then assassinated him. then claimed the throne.

stannis is lawful neutral. he follows the law's to the letter. renly just went up and said screw the law's.

that would have set the worst precedent in history. the last ignored precedent sparked off the dance.

this one would no doubt along the line tear the family line apart. as it basically say's "if you have a lot of allies you can ignore succession, and crown yourself. :thumbsup: "

a precedent like that is a recipe for war. as second son's try and usurp. and as random lord's declare themselves king's by right of conquest. it would have eventually tore the iron throne apart.

[The silver dragon]

By all the laws of Westeros, Joffrey is the rightful king and has the better claim.

Legality remains in the eye of the beholder, and at that moment, Stannis didn't exactly look like the portrait of legitimacy, in fact, he was pretty much as much an usurper as Renly.

slightly less of a tratitor the renly. as renly crowned himself without a valid causes beli.

stannis had one.

[The silver dragon]

He offers to give Stannis Storm's End if he bends the knee, he didn't want to kill his brother either, and so he offered ridiculously generous terms for the surrender of Stannis's measly 5k men.

And while Renly is pragmatic, he is also rather chivalrous in how he acts. He's a sucker for PR, and would not have had anyone outright assassinated, especially not his brother and his niece who wouldn't be threats anyhow.

yeah bend the nee and be the laughing stalk of the entire seven kingdom's.

and they would be threat's sure renly might not kill. but one of his heir's might.

[Trigger Warning]

Stannis is jumping ahead of two better claimants.

If he wins, their bastardy will be accepted simply because he's in the position of power. No one would actually believe him though.

Welcome to feudalism.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Stannis assassinated another claimant attempting to steal his final objective. This is war. This is what you do. Morally right or wrong doesn't actually matter that much. Opposition forces will kill each other.

Who cares now though, anyway? He's dead, dead is dead, Zed is dead. As Ser Hyle Hunt said, nobody cares about Renly anymore.

[Nictarion]

Stannis assassinated another claimant attempting to steal his final objective.

Which is why it's so funny when people go on about him not really wanting the throne. Of course he does. If he didn't he could have done like Maester Aemon and let his little brother have it.

[Sullen]

yeah bend the nee and be the laughing stalk of the entire seven kingdom's.

and they would be threat's sure renly might not kill. but one of his heir's might.

Bending the knee to an army twenty times the size of yours would not make you the laughing stock of the Seven Kingdoms, it would make you appear reasonable.

And no, they wouldn't be a threat. Nobody likes Stannis and nobody wants him as their King, justly. Unless Stannis himself starts plotting against the hypothetical current administration, he is of no danger and perfectly safe.

slightly less of a tratitor the renly. as renly crowned himself without a valid causes beli.

stannis had one.

Renly's casus belli was that his life was in danger, and he blamed the Lannisters for Robert's death. That's considerably more believable than Stannis' "Believe me, guys, I can't prove it right now, but I'm totally the rightful King!"

[Viserys - The last dragon]

1) By law, Joffrey is king. Hair colour is not a legal case, and Stannis can't read or submit ASoIaF as evidence.

2) The Throne you're fighting over was most recently decided by a version of a popularity contest.

3) He doesn't attack you. YOU ATTACK HIM. He merely defends himself. No idea how people keep inverting this.

4) You hadn't been heard of in years, had fore sworn your duties and abandoned your king/brother and Renly was mostly trying to survive. He had stayed around in KL as Cersei's enemy, and so his head was on the block if he doesn't find a way out. He tried a few other versions before claiming the Throne.

This

[Bronn Urgandy]

Which is why it's so funny when people go on about him not really wanting the throne. Of course he does. If he didn't he could have done like Maester Aemon and let his little brother have it.

I have a long old theory about Stannis' desire for the Throne. Its deeper than merely "I want it" or "POWER MUUUAAAHAHAHA!". I believe he doesn't particularly want it, as he says, but he is totally obsessed with it because simply because of birth right, because by every law he knows and understands it belongs to him, because the Lannisters made such a laughing stock of Robert and Stannis believes he is the man to put that right. He's made some mistakes along the way, like following Robert instead of Aerys, but that shows he is Human and despite what people think does actually value Robert, but this is where I think his motivations lie. A simple desire for a power grab is over-simplifying and doesn't follow what we are told about Stannis particularly by other characters or even the author in interviews. It misses the point.

That said, I think Stannis' obsession with the Throne is significantly less healthy than it would be if it were a mere power grab, as the toll it has taken on his body shows. A man can give up a dream of power when it looks fruitless, a man will not march into hopeless situations where death is more likely than success just for mere power, a man can change his goals if power was what it was all about. Stannis on the other hand will and has stopped at nothing because this is how it should be. This is what makes him better and oddly worse than men like Littlefinger. Its a freakish, damn unhealthy obsession that goes beyond the understanding of most of us, which is why we try to rationalise it as simply as we do by saying either "power hungry" or "totally all about duty". Edit - Power hungry or all about duty can be reasoned with, but does anybody seriously think Stannis is going to step aside for anything? Aegon the Conquerer could come back from the dead and demand the Iron Throne by virtue of creating the damn thing and Stannis will still beat him or die in the attempt.

I try to avoid comparing lordly Lords to sworn Maesters, its a different ballgame for Stannis and Aemon.

[Red Typer of Dorne]

Both Renly and Stannis are Usurpers in the eyes of Westeros, Succession has has no place when taking a throne by force. Having said that, in Stannis's mind he is entirely justified, it is 100% a matter of perspective

[Bronn Urgandy]

Stannis assassinated another claimant attempting to steal his final objective. This is war. This is what you do. Morally right or wrong doesn't actually matter that much. Opposition forces will kill each other.

Who cares now though, anyway? He's dead, dead is dead, Zed is dead. As Ser Hyle Hunt said, nobody cares about Renly anymore.

Want to point out that the same would apply to Stannis (except in the eyes of those who don't like Joffrey but still value the "elder first" rule) before I get jumped on for this.

[perplexed_mind]

No it was not justified.

1. "What else could he have done?" does not make it justified. They already had plans to fight at dawn. He could've been the better warrior and defeated his brother.

2. "Renly is a traitor". Stannis is not king, he should not be seeking to execute justice. Nor is he the ruler of Storm's End. It is not his land for him to punish criminals on. Also, Stannis himself is a traitor to the realm.

3."all is fair in love and war" No, that's why there are "war crimes". Even in Westeros, there is a at least a sliver of honour in war. If someone loses a duel/challenge, then the losing side honours that sides victory (a la Tyrion winning his trial by combat. Lysa didn't say "well too bad I'm going to kill you anyways"). Or like Ser Cortney Penrose. Stannis refused the combat because he knew if his side lost, then he would have to give up the siege. There is honour and rules to war. What Stannis did is treachery and dishonourable. Even if I like Stannis, the way he dealt with his own Brother was terrible.

[Guard of the Rainking]

No it was not justified.

1. "What else could he have done?" does not make it justified. They already had plans to fight at dawn. He could've been the better warrior and defeated his brother.

Wut?

[perplexed_mind]

Wut?

On the battle field. Not with treachery.

[Varys+Cersei=Aemon]

He should've challenged Renly to single combat, in my opinion. It would've been more courageous of Stannis, and if Renly denied it, he would've looked like a coward. Instead, using magic to kill Renly makes Stannis look afraid to confront him head on, and all of the supporters of Renly gave up and left when they likely would've had a bit nore respect for him if he fought him head on. My own two cents.

The kinslayer is accursed in the eyes of gods and men, you know, and do you really think that that those who support Renly would like to have a kinslayer as their king?

When Stannis (Melisandre) uses magic, you couldn't know for sure who did it, and therefore Stannis is less likely to be blamed for the death of his brother.

[MyLittleFinger]

On the battle field. Not with treachery.

Pretty sure any plan to kill Stannis involves Loras, Brienne or the countless other champions he has opening his throat...sweet single combat!

[Guard of the Rainking]

On the battle field. Not with treachery.

Stannis is a good commander, but he would have to be on some Zhuge Liang level to defeat Renly's army.

Pretty sure any plan to kill Stannis involves Loras, Brienne or the countless other champions he has opening his throat...sweet single combat!

Exactly.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

1) that's a quaint idea of peasantry. First off, what if the levies are called? What's it called when you don't go? What's the punishment? And how many peasants can even afford to go to the Free Cities?

As for serfdom, where do you get the idea it doesn't exist? Do you remember Septon Bart's recollection? Nothing about free will there, was there?

Well, I guess then we had serfdom here, a mere ten years ago, when I had to present myself at the draft office.

It's Septon Merribald, by the way. And he and his friends were volunteers. And camp followers, not soldiers.

Stannis would not have anything to fear as long as he bent knee to Renly. Was not it the same thing he offered Renly? Do you think Stannis would eventually get Renly killed to secure his line even if he bent knee? That is an awkward thoguht considering that Stannis offered Renly to be his heir if he bent knee to him.

No. Because Renly was the head of the younger line.

Stannis would form the older line and everybody in entire Westeros would know that the older line had the better claim. They'd rebel against Renly like once per generation for as long as the older line exists.

I like how it's Renly that must throw away his alliances to back Stannis and still likely lose, instead of Stannis giving up his obsession with birthright to back Renly and win.

Renly is so damned unreasonable.

Screwing up the inheritance rules sows the seeds for a couple centuries of civil wars. Keeping them strong is a legitimate goal in itself.

[MyLittleFinger]

Eddard Stark should have shown up to the Tower of Joy and challenged Arthur Dayne to single combat the dishonorable scumbag. He bloody cheated! 7 on 3 bullshit!

[Bronn Urgandy]

i love this rationale, honestly.

If I break into your home and try and kill your family, can I then kill you in self-defense if you reach for a baseball bat?

More a case of one burglar killing another before he could break into the house. As it happens the burglar who commited the murder actually owns the house. I am sure you'll ignore this though. Silly rationale indeed. A call to arms, a crown on your head and marching on the capital is an offensive act against anybody and everbody who doesn't agree with the idea of you ruling.