Maybe Stannis is still alive

[Fanless Mace]

 
Tommen is still alive and legally he is a Baratheon.

Legal schmegal, he ain't no Baratheon. And Maggy the Frog's prophecy says perhaps he ain't got long to live. But point taken.

[Bronn Urgandy]

I've always said that Stannis is FAR more an interesting character that the plain villians like Ramsay/Roose, Baelish and Euron. But I've always thought that the showrunners and GRRM wont see it that way, the Starks and Dany are their babies and its clearly their place to revenge themselves on the baddies, at the expense of everybody else. Dissapointing for me, but there it is. A tad annoying that the showrunners tore Stannis down every step of the way and made him far worse than his book counterpart. Consider me on board (I never was before) with show criticisms, from pointless evil to discrediting everything he does in some form.

And if he does die at this point in the books, then I'll roll over in my grave knowing they made him do it for the lols.

[Turumarth]

Sorry, my first post (other than a self-introduction) after lurking for over a year:

 

It seems Stannis is most definitely dead and should stay that way. I really don't understand why some people like Stannis. For me he wasn't very likable either in the series or in the books. He was a double kin-slayer and he got what he deserved, even if he did think his cause was right. 

 

But even so, his end was not undignified. He bravely lead a charge despite an utterly hopeless situation and continued defending himself until he couldn't walk another step. One can easily imagine he must have taken down quite a few more Bolton men than just the two we saw.  He faced his accuser and admitted what he'd done to his brother Renly. He looked Brienne in the eye as he received the death-blow. 

 

For me the real red herring is thinking that the Others are really the "bad guys". And Azor Ahai, too, as depicted in the legend, is morally ambiguous. 

 

The world of this saga is fundamentally out of balance. The elements and energies of Fire and Ice must achieve a harmony in order to make a song. Then maybe the Dragons will truly dance and the Others can become their partners instead of their enemies. The Wall will melt and the weather of the world will be able to return to a normal annual cycle.  Perhaps the Children of the Forest will return to live in harmony with the humans? Stannis was not someone who could bring about a balance, but even less will someone like Victarion be fit to do so, who did not shrink from "sacrificing" (murdering) an entire boatload of innocents. 

[Stag_legion]

Sorry, my first post (other than a self-introduction) after lurking for over a year:

 

It seems Stannis is most definitely dead and should stay that way. I really don't understand why some people like Stannis. For me he wasn't very likable either in the series or in the books. He was a double kin-slayer and he got what he deserved, even if he did think his cause was right. 

 

But even so, his end was not undignified. He bravely lead a charge despite an utterly hopeless situation and continued defending himself until he couldn't walk another step. One can easily imagine he must have taken down quite a few more Bolton men than just the two we saw.  He faced his accuser and admitted what he'd done to his brother Renly. He looked Brienne in the eye as he received the death-blow. 

 

For me the real red herring is thinking that the Others are really the "bad guys". And Azor Ahai, too, as depicted in the legend, is morally ambiguous. 

 

The world of this saga is fundamentally out of balance. The elements and energies of Fire and Ice must achieve a harmony in order to make a song. Then maybe the Dragons will truly dance and the Others can become their partners instead of their enemies. The Wall will melt and the weather of the world will be able to return to a normal annual cycle.  Perhaps the Children of the Forest will return to live in harmony with the humans? Stannis was not someone who could bring about a balance, but even less will someone like Euron be fit to do so, who did not shrink from "sacrificing" (murdering) an entire boatload of innocents. 

Kinslaying wasn't an uncommon thing, both in ASOIAF universe and real middle ages. Within an established dynasty other family members can often be the most serious threat to the head of a house, Kinslaying is especially likely after a King dies. Even the fan favorite house Stark, has had its share of Kinslaying in the past.

 

Stannis had little choice other than to kill Renly and its clear he didn't like killing his brother and it has tormented him since. Stannis and Renly's situation is like a guy trying to rob another guy at gun point for everything he has. the man being robbed has two choices: 1. lose everything and let the robber go 2. kill the robber in a surprise move.

You might think the person being robbed has the option of disarming the robber rather than killing him, but that's a risk that's not worth taking since the robber might kill him.

as has been said before: "in the game of thrones, you either win or you die", its the unfortunate outcome of a feudal system. Those who spared their political rivals often pay for it with their lives later.

 

I have always found it odd that people are ok with liking Tyrion in spite killing his father, which he did entirely out of spite (rather than survival like stannis), but they are quick to hate stannis because of the indirect kinslaying.

[Epyon]

The only ways I can see Stannis being spared:

 

1. Brienne intends to trade him for Sansa, to the Boltons.... (Which doesn't work, because the Boltons have an army, and Roose will recognize Brienne as a follower of Catelyn, and simply arrest Brienne)

 

2. Someone is holding Podrick hostage.... Stannis' people are dead, so it would have to be a Bolton, in which case Brienne, Stannis, and Pod are all screwed and captured.

 

3. Littlefinger + Vale army show up, and capture them.

 

4. Brienne gives Stannis the option of taking the black. Considering the disdain he holds for the NW, the fact that they just murdered Jon Snow, and he might have some people at the wall (his ships + crews where still dealing with the NW).... I don't think Brienne is stupid enough to bring him there, and I don't see him as the type of person willing to abandon his claim on the IT, even if he would be the best chance (post Jon Snow as LC) to lead the NW against the others.

 

5. A bit crackpot, but I had always expected Stannis' story to somewhat parallel "Arthas" from the Warcraft universe, and eventually for Stannis to become to hopelessly desperate for the power he needs to take over Westeros, that he makes a deal with the "Others" and assumes the mantle of a new Night's King.  Given that the show apparently already has that role taken, this seems unlikely now, however.  The only thing I can think of that might make this possible on the show, is if he gets to the wall and sees Mel basically backing Jon as AAR/ Jon resurrected/ Mel basically telling Stannis she and her god used him..... but that still involves him getting up to the wall (and/or presumably beyond it, since there is no evidence thus far that White Walker magic works south of the wall, while the wall stands)......... The flip side of that coin, however, is that, when I saw the shots of the aftermath of the Bolton/Stannis war outside Winterfell, I immediately thought about how they just conveniently gave the Night's King (or any White Walker possibly?) one gigantic army to besiege Winterfell with later..

[MoreOrLess]

I think its certainly true that Stannis is in a much more dangerous position than Renly if he backs down. For one thing personality wise Stannis is much less likely to go back on his word but for another Renly isn't nearly as much of a direct threat to him if he becomes king. With Renly as king Stannis would always be viewed as a danger simply because he would be viewed as the rightful king, the fear would always be that anyone who ends up in conflict with Renly could back Stannis as a rival.

 

You do see his negative reaction to killing Renly on the show as well in that scene in the last episode of the 2nd season(still one of my favourites) and I think that's a clear driver in the way he acts after that. Once you've gone that far down the path to give up means facing what you've already done.

 

That's really what worked for me about Stannis is season 5, he doesn't just come across as an arrogant egotist but rather someone who feels that he has to cling onto his "destiny" because so much has already been invested in it, giving up means it was all for nothing.

[Winter's Cold]

Kinslaying wasn't an uncommon thing, both in ASOIAF universe and real middle ages. Within an established dynasty other family members can often be the most serious threat to the head of a house, Kinslaying is especially likely after a King dies. Even the fan favorite house Stark, has had its share of Kinslaying in the past.

 

Stannis had little choice other than to kill Renly and its clear he didn't like killing his brother and it has tormented him since. Stannis and Renly's situation is like a guy trying to rob another guy at gun point for everything he has. the man being robbed has two choices: 1. lose everything and let the robber go 2. kill the robber in a surprise move.

You might think the person being robbed has the option of disarming the robber rather than killing him, but that's a risk that's not worth taking since the robber might kill him.

as has been said before: "in the game of thrones, you either win or you die", its the unfortunate outcome of a feudal system. Those who spared their political rivals often pay for it with their lives later.

 

I have always found it odd that people are ok with liking Tyrion in spite killing his father, which he did entirely out of spite (rather than survival like stannis), but they are quick to hate stannis because of the indirect kinslaying.

 

Stannis being a failure is the main reason he is despised. He won the war for the Lannisters by killing Renly and then wasted the stormlands troops at Blackwater. Stannis was not forced to attack Renly. He did it because of his lust for power. It was for the same reason he abandoned Robert to the Lannister in King's Landing instead of doing his duty and reporting his findings. 

 

Also according to most lords in Westeros, Stannis is not the rightful king. Joffrey is. Therefore, he is just another usurper in the eyes of the realm. Brienne did a favor to Westeros by ridding the realm of a treacherous and power hungry lord.

[Turumarth]

I posted this by mistake. Real post to follow:

[Turumarth]

Stag_legion and MoreOrLess:

 

You both raise some good points. I see Stannis as a rather complicated character. The conflict between Renly and Stannis was pretty much unavoidable from Stannis' perspective. But from the beginning of the novels Stannis was depicted as someone overly concerned with ​his own rights. I just want to speak up for three main views: First, Stannis in the series was, after all, not so very different to Stannis in the novels and his death was not without dignity.  Second, though I may be rather old fashioned I stand by the hopelessly idealistic view that good ends cannot justify all means. I know the Starks were and are far from perfect, but I love how the late great Lord Eddard Stark would rather renounce the power of the Hand than be party to the murder of a child. Third, R'hllor seems to be just as "evil" as the The Great Other. It doesn't matter that the followers of the Red God can raise the dead and see the future. Bran can see more than Melisandre will ever see. And the Great Other can, rather obviously, raise the dead, too. The final resolution of this great story had better be much greater than simply that someone (or Three) are revealed as Azor Ahai returned, defeat the Others and ascend the Iron Throne.  

 

About Tyrion : I was aghast when he shot and killed Tywin Lannister, who I detested nevertheless. I've long been a supporter of the theory that Tyrion is the son of the Mad King. In fact I came to that theory from my own reading of the novels before ever I found out that there were (some) others who shared my view. I really hope Tyrion turns out not to have killed his father.  I can't understand people who talk about Tyrion as if it's somehow cool to wear the badge of "kinslayer". And yes, he killed Tywin for personal reasons, but it was more complicated than just spite, wasn't it? 

[MoreOrLess]

"Treacherous" is a bit of a strange criticism of Stannis, surely the nature of the character/plot is that he isn't treacherous or politically devious enough to one up his enemies. You could argue every other major political force in Westeros bar maybe the Martels has been more treacherous than Stannis.

[MoreOrLess]

Turumath, I'm generally in agreement with you that the book/show characters weren't that far apart and that he was treated with a tragic dignity last season.

 

It does seem to be a pretty commonly held view that the Great Other/Lord of Light may well turn out to be "giants in a sandpit" or elemental forces of nature with neither being definitively "good" or bad".

 

Morally I would agree the Starks(well the men anyway) seem to be above the rest of the political forces in Westeros. I think to take their failure as "punishment" is incorrect as we've seen that those who believe "the ends justify the means" have failed as well or will likely fail in the future.

 

Generally my disagreement isn't with those who believe Stannis was less than morally righteous but rather those who look to paint Renly as being so when really he was also ruthlessly ambitious, he just put a kind face on it.

[Tony Inchpractice]

 

Stannis being a failure is the main reason he is despised. He won the war for the Lannisters by killing Renly and then wasted the stormlands troops at Blackwater. Stannis was not forced to attack Renly. He did it because of his lust for power. It was for the same reason he abandoned Robert to the Lannister in King's Landing instead of doing his duty and reporting his findings. 

 

Also according to most lords in Westeros, Stannis is not the rightful king. Joffrey is. Therefore, he is just another usurper in the eyes of the realm. Brienne did a favor to Westeros by ridding the realm of a treacherous and power hungry lord.

 

Don't be daft. Stannis has the strongest claim.

[Winter's Cold]

 

Don't be daft. Stannis has the strongest claim.

 

 

Stannis is an usurper to most of Westeros while Joffrey is the rightful king.

[Stag_legion]

 

 

Stannis is an usurper to most of Westeros while Joffrey is the rightful king.

Wrong, most of westeros has their suspicions about Jeoffry's parentage, but they lack the political motive or power to do anything about that. Even the smallfolk yell out stannis' name every once in a while.

 

Make no mistake, jeoffry is on the throne because lannisters and their allies are (were) keeping him there, not because everyone accepts his legitimacy.

[Winter's Cold]

Wrong, most of westeros has their suspicions about Jeoffry's parentage, but they lack the political motive or power to do anything about that. Even the smallfolk yell out stannis' name every once in a while.

 

Make no mistake, jeoffry is on the throne because lannisters and their allies are (were) keeping him there, not because everyone accepts his legitimacy.

 

Suspicions are not the same as proof. If the lords truly believed that Stannis was the rightful king, they would declare for him. If the only region that can give him support is the stormlands, then the majority of the lords of Westeros do not believe that he is the rightful king.

[Stag_legion]

 

Suspicions are not the same as proof. If the lords truly believed that Stannis was the rightful king, they would declare for him. If the only region that can give him support is the stormlands, then the majority of the lords of Westeros do not believe that he is the rightful king.

Stormlands would have declared for stannis if it weren't for renly! that's why they immediately switch to stannis once renly is dead.

 

Also you are wrong, other lords wouldn't ally with stannis just cause they believe he is the rightful king since they would bring the lannister/tyrell wrath on themselves. If stannis had taken Kingslanding and seemed to be winning the throne other houses would start declaring for him one by one and would accept his claim about jeoffry.

 

Regarding proof, its not like they have genetic testing in ASOIAF, the evidence presented isn't expected to be as rock solid as our modern world. Stannis was planning on bringing Edric storm after taking Kingslanding and presenting him as evidence, he would also find witnesses in kingslanding who have seen jaime and cersei being closer than normal brothers and sisters.

[Baron Bazunor the Twisted]

I think I got a contact high simply reading this thread. Holy shit.

[Turumarth]

Stannis had a decent claim, but obviously no better than Dany's or Aegon's (if he's for real).

 

However, no one (or three) will ever unite and rule Westeros again. Does Westeros really need a ruler? Who knows? But GRRM's writing has from the beginning of the novels suggested to me that Stannis would make a pretty poor king of Westeros, even if did have a few redeeming qualities. 

 

Whether one demonises Stannis or idolises him it's a misunderstanding of GRRM's intentions for the character, I believe. 

[Stag_legion]

Stannis had a decent claim, but obviously no better than Dany's or Aegon's (if he's for real).

 

However, no one (or three) will ever unite and rule Westeros again. Does Westeros really need a ruler? Who knows? But GRRM's writing has from the beginning of the novels suggested to me that Stannis would make a pretty poor king of Westeros, even if did have a few redeeming qualities. 

 

Whether one demonises Stannis or idolises him it's a misunderstanding of GRRM's intentions for the character, I believe. 

Wrong, the royal house in westeros is house baratheon currently, and stannis has the single best claim for the baratheon throne. If Dany or Aegon want to the throne they will have to reinstate the targaryen dynasty, they currently have no claim to it beside being a relative of the baratheons from the female side, so they way down the line of succession.

 

I also disagree that Martin wrote stannis with the intention of making him a bad ruler, I think its the opposite Martin made stannis as a case for how a stern but capable leader might be what is needed in a time of chaos. 

[MoreOrLess]

Certainly I think Martin or D&D did not intend(as Blackwater Saint endlessly ranted on about in that other thread) Renly to be viewed as the "good" ruler and Stannis the "bad". Renly likely does believe a lot of his own talk(although he's also clearly driven by ambition) but ultimately he's a man of his time isn't he? he hasn't experienced war or really had to make many difficult decisions previously. Even his idea of Robert being a bad king because he was a solider isn't wholey true is it? he was a bad king more than anything because he was wallowing in depression after Lyanna's death.

 

The whole Stannis story on the show at any rate for me wasn't really about whether he would have been a "good king" anyway so much as it was a the story of him trying to become king/AA in an increasingly desperate situation. I don't really agree with the idea that the show "hated" him, maybe it cast him a bit worse light at points for the benefit of certain other characters like Tyrion and Davos but overall I do think Stannis is a character who's presented as having creditable aspects to him unlike say Joffery, the Boltons, etc. Overall its more of a Greek/Shakespearian tragedy(more than a little of Hamlet in the Stannis and Kings Landing plots IMHO) of a man brought low by putting the ends before the means and being locked into his "destiny". If he was just an egotistical asshole then that wouldn't be a very good story would it? having him be in many respects creditable has the audience seeing where he's potentially going and hoping its not going to happen.