Stephan Dillane reflects on Stannis

[TepidHands]

4 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Ah, I certainly could be wrong on who said it.  Do you remember if he said Renly was "copper"?

yep, "bright and shiny, pretty to look at, but not worth all that much at the end of the day."

[kissdbyfire]

Noye was great. Loved him when the wildlings attack CB and he says that anyone who stops fighting, he'll throw them off the Wall, starting with the septon. 

Donal Noye rounded on him. "Any man here stays his sword, I'll chuck his puckered arse right off this Wall . . . starting with you, Septon.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Book!Stannis accepts that he's AA as well. The giant difference is that despite believing he's AA and has to save the world, he does not believe he needs to exchange a brain for magic and brain leech. Certainly against human foes he knows he needs to rely on campaign strategy. If he has to burn his sole heir already for a snowstorm to win a fight against the Boltons, then what is he gonna burn to win against the Others?

No, Book Stannis doesn't believe in the Lord of Light and is only using Melisandre for her power. 

 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Also, I don't follow how being AA logically implies he does not need an heir. If he believes he's AA and magic is on his side, he would be assured that he WILL save the world, and therefore has to foresee a legacy and thus have an heir.

The White Walkers are his most pressing concern. If he dies and the White Walkers invade, having an heir wouldn't matter anyway. Taking the Iron Thrones is simply a means to an end to achieve his ultimate objective, which is defeating the White Walkers.

 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Oh, and D&D have said that ShowStannis is ambitious and wants the throne... so your claim that ShowStannis is only in it out of AA duty is deadpan wrong. It's actually the other way around. BookStannis is the duty guy, not the "I wanna be king because I wanna" guy.

I know they've said this, but it doesn't matter, because it's contradicted by what's presented in the show:

"The night will devour them all, she say, the night that never ends. Unless I triumph."

"Keep reading, Samwell Tarly."

"Only you could lead the living against the dead."

"Once a man finds out who he is, he must fulfill his destiny."

[good girl]

Here is my post that went unchallenged from page 3

 

On 13/04/2016 at 5:14 PM, bad pussy said:

Of course Stannis is a villain. Deserts Robert leaving him to those plotting against him, rejects his religion to join a cult, kills his brother during a truce with blood magic, burns his in-laws, plans to kill his nephew, interferes with the Night's Watch independence, burns his hungry men.

As for being a liar. He claims Melisandre was with him in his tent when Courtney Penrose died when she was with Davos birthing a shadow assassin.

 

 

[Prince of the North]

7 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

The White Walkers are his most pressing concern. If he dies and the White Walkers invade, having an heir wouldn't matter anyway. Taking the Iron Thrones is simply a means to an end to achieve his ultimate objective, which is defeating the White Walkers.

Hmm...I'm not sure about this.  I don't think it has to be an either/or, binary situation and I don't believe it's presented that way in the books.  Wasn't it Book!Stannis who said (paraphrasing): "I thought I had to take the throne to save the kingdom but now I know I must save the kingdom to take the throne"?  No, I think Book!Stannis sees the two as very linked.  I think it's presented in the books that he sees both as his "rightful" duty because he knows that he's Robert's legitimate heir (i.e. the rightful king) and he knows it's the king's duty to protect the realm.

[sweetsunray]

11 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

1. No, Book Stannis doesn't believe in the Lord of Light and is only using Melisandre for her power. 

 

2. The White Walkers are his most pressing concern. If he dies and the White Walkers invade, having an heir wouldn't matter anyway.

3. Taking the Iron Thrones is simply a means to an end to achieve his ultimate objective, which is defeating the White Walkers.

 

4. I know they've said this, but it doesn't matter, because it's contradicted by what's presented in the show:

"The night will devour them all, she say, the night that never ends. Unless I triumph."

"Keep reading, Samwell Tarly."

"Only you could lead the living against the dead."

"Once a man finds out who he is, he must fulfill his destiny."

1. Correct claim, but strawman... I did not say that Stannis believes in the Lord of Light in the books. I said he believes he's AA... and he believes in Mel's magic. You can still believe you're AA and believe in a person's ability to have visions, without believing in her god. AA =/= Lord of Light.

2. Boltons aren't White Walkers. Again - what is he going to sacrifice to stop the White Walkers if he takes brain-bleach-cool-aid and burns his heir to win against Boltons? And if the WW are the most pressing and sole concern then why fight the Boltons at all? Why doesn't he use his army to man the wall and defend it against WW?

3. Manifestly wrong for both book and show. Davos convinces him that he should help out at the Wall even while he's not king yet.

4. Selective pickings.

 

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Hmm...I'm not sure about this.  I don't think it has to be an either/or, binary situation and I don't believe it's presented that way in the books.  Wasn't it Book!Stannis who said (paraphrasing): "I thought I had to take the throne to save the kingdom but now I know I must save the kingdom to take the throne"?  No, I think Book!Stannis sees the two as very linked.  I think it's presented in the books that he sees both as his "rightful" duty because he knows that he's Robert's legitimate heir (i.e. the rightful king) and he knows it's the king's duty to protect the realm.

Yes, that was his epiphany come to jesus moment, when he decides he had it backwards.  Of course we never got that line in the show.

Stannis is a grim guy, he's full of resentment.  He hates his wife.  Nobody likes him while his lush of a brother Robert turns enemies into friends, and his younger brother whose orientation he disapproves of, also has tons of friends.  He's pedantic.  The letter correcting scene in the show was quite good.  He's an atheist since his parents were killed. 

He has done some terrible things.  Killing his brother via blood magic and a stand up guy like Courtney Penrose was terrible.  But he's not a villain.  He's morally compromised and doesn't admit it.  

I never saw him as ambitious really, I saw that he's a grim pedantic guy who colors inside the lines and he's the legal heir to the throne, the end.  His pursuit of the IT is the same as him cutting off Davos fingers after he saved his life.  He's not a flexible guy though he does become more flexible by Dance.

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, that was his epiphany come to jesus moment, when he decides he had it backwards.  Of course we never got that line in the show.

Stannis is a grim guy, he's full of resentment.  He hates his wife.  Nobody likes him while his lush of a brother Robert turns enemies into friends, and his younger brother whose orientation he disapproves of, also has tons of friends.  He's pedantic.  The letter correcting scene in the show was quite good.  He's an atheist since his parents were killed. 

He has done some terrible things.  Killing his brother via blood magic and a stand up guy like Courtney Penrose was terrible.  But he's not a villain.  He's morally compromised and doesn't admit it.  

I never saw him as ambitious really, I saw that he's a grim pedantic guy who colors inside the lines and he's the legal heir to the throne, the end.  His pursuit of the IT is the same as him cutting off Davos fingers after he saved his life.  He's not a flexible guy though he does become more flexible by Dance.

Good points. But one very important aspect that is often left out is the fact that Stannis is the only noble/high born we see that actually believes in a meritocracy. Something even The Ned is not too worried about, since he seems to never really question the status quo or be bothered by it. 

[Dragon in the North]

20 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Hmm...I'm not sure about this.  I don't think it has to be an either/or, binary situation and I don't believe it's presented that way in the books.  Wasn't it Book!Stannis who said (paraphrasing): "I thought I had to take the throne to save the kingdom but now I know I must save the kingdom to take the throne"?  No, I think Book!Stannis sees the two as very linked.  I think it's presented in the books that he sees both as his "rightful" duty because he knows that he's Robert's legitimate heir (i.e. the rightful king) and he knows it's the king's duty to protect the realm.

It's been a while since I've read the books, but I thought the quote was in regards to the wildlings attacking the Wall. 

[Prince of the North]

16 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, that was his epiphany come to jesus moment, when he decides he had it backwards.  Of course we never got that line in the show.

Stannis is a grim guy, he's full of resentment.  He hates his wife.  Nobody likes him while his lush of a brother Robert turns enemies into friends, and his younger brother whose orientation he disapproves of, also has tons of friends.  He's pedantic.  The letter correcting scene in the show was quite good.  He's an atheist since his parents were killed. 

He has done some terrible things.  Killing his brother via blood magic and a stand up guy like Courtney Penrose was terrible.  But he's not a villain.  He's morally compromised and doesn't admit it.  

I never saw him as ambitious really, I saw that he's a grim pedantic guy who colors inside the lines and he's the legal heir to the throne, the end.  His pursuit of the IT is the same as him cutting off Davos fingers after he saved his life.  He's not a flexible guy though he does become more flexible by Dance.

 

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Good points. But one very important aspect that is often left out is the fact that Stannis is the only noble/high born we see that actually believes in a meritocracy. Something even The Ned is not too worried about, since he seems to never really question the status quo or be bothered by it. 

Agreed with you both.

3 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

It's been a while since I've read the books, but I thought the quote was in regards to the wildlings attacking the Wall. 

It's been awhile since I've read it as well.  But since his going to the Wall was quite infuenced by Melisandre I think it had more to do with the Others, etc., and not the wildlings

[Dragon in the North]

17 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

1. Correct claim, but strawman... I did not say that Stannis believes in the Lord of Light in the books. I said he believes he's AA... and he believes in Mel's magic. You can still believe you're AA and believe in a person's ability to have visions, without believing in her god. AA =/= Lord of Light.

2. Boltons aren't White Walkers. Again - what is he going to sacrifice to stop the White Walkers if he takes brain-bleach-cool-aid and burns his heir to win against Boltons? And if the WW are the most pressing and sole concern then why fight the Boltons at all? Why doesn't he use his army to man the wall and defend it against WW?

3. Manifestly wrong for both book and show. Davos convinces him that he should help out at the Wall even while he's not king yet.

4. Selective pickings.

 

1. AA is directly linked to the Lord of Light. I don't see how he could believe in one but not the other.

2. If Shireen's sacrifice was a way to defeat the White Walkers, Melisandre would have done that at the Wall without asking Stannis's permission. I don't think defeating the White Walkers is that simple. Stannis needed to sacrifice Shireen to defeat the Boltons, which would have given him the opportunity to unite the North and take the Throne. With a united kingdom led by Stannis, they could defeat the White Walkers.

3. Stannis needs a larger army to take on the Lannisters and with Robb Stark dead, he believes he would be able to win the northerners to his cause. He believes saving the Wall and defeating the wildlings would be good propaganda.

4. Evidence ot support my claim.

[Dragon in the North]

1 minute ago, Prince of the North said:

 

Agreed with you both.

It's been awhile since I've read it as well.  But since his going to the Wall was quite infuenced by Melisandre I think it had more to do with the Others, etc., and not the wildlings

I do believe that Stannis is aware of the White Walkers' existence. He says as much in ADWD, iirc. But I'm not sure if it's specified why he leaves the Wall to take the North. I don't remember him mentioning the White Walkers ever again since leaving the Wall and is only concentrated on taking the Throne.

[Cas Stark]

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Good points. But one very important aspect that is often left out is the fact that Stannis is the only noble/high born we see that actually believes in a meritocracy. Something even The Ned is not too worried about, since he seems to never really question the status quo or be bothered by it. 

The Ned does put all manner of people at his own table and talks to them, I think this was Arya? remembering that, which would also be seen as a huge honor to be dining with the Warden of the North, so, while it's not as directly meritocracy as Davos, we will make new lords...it shows that he understand that everyone has value, and that a good lord knows how the nuts and bolts work and gives praise and time to small folk as well as lords.  

[Prince of the North]

Just now, Dragon in the North said:

I do believe that Stannis is aware of the White Walkers' existence. He says as much in ADWD, iirc. But I'm not sure if it's specified why he leaves the Wall to take the North. I don't remember him mentioning the White Walkers ever again since leaving the Wall and is only concentrated on taking the Throne.

Have we changed from talking about the reason Stannis went to the Wall to the reason why he left the Wall to stabilize the North?  I think he originally went to the Wall at Mel's bidding because of her "belief" that he's AAR and can defeat the Others, etc.  I believe he left the Wall to oust the Boltons and stabilize the North because he knows that's what he has to do before turning his attention beyond the Wall again.  You know, not wanting to be caught between two enemy forces (i.e. the Others to the north and Lannister allies to the south).

[Dragon in the North]

1 minute ago, Prince of the North said:

Have we changed from talking about the reason Stannis went to the Wall to the reason why he left the Wall to stabilize the North?  I think he originally went to the Wall at Mel's bidding because of her "belief" that he's AAR and can defeat the Others, etc.  I believe he left the Wall to oust the Boltons and stabilize the North because he knows that's what he has to do before turning his attention beyond the Wall again.  You know, not wanting to be caught between two enemy forces (i.e. the Others to the north and Lannister allies to the south).

I'm trying to gauge Book Stannis's true intentions. When he went to the Wall, I initially believed he went to help the Watch fight the White Walkers. But after defeating the wildlings, he spoke of adding them to his army and march south to take the North from the Boltons, which made me think he only came to defeat the wildlings and add more numbers to his army. I agree with your point that Stannis may want to take care of the Boltons so he's not fighting on two fronts, but I don't believe the books stated Stannis's true reasonings for wanting to take the North other than wanting the Throne.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I'm trying to gauge Book Stannis's true intentions. When he went to the Wall, I initially believed he went to help the Watch fight the White Walkers. But after defeating the wildlings, he spoke of adding them to his army and march south to take the North from the Boltons, which made me think he only came to defeat the wildlings and add more numbers to his army. I agree with your point that Stannis may want to take care of the Boltons so he's not fighting on two fronts, but I don't believe the books stated Stannis's true reasonings for wanting to take the North other than wanting the Throne.

Why can't it be both?  Everyone in Westeros is completely biased against the wildlings.  So, of course Mel's vision+NW are his kind of guys, dour rule followers who have no friends or family, LOL and everyone hates the wildlings, it's a win win, he helps the NW and recruits the wildlings to fight for him.  He is definitely going after Boltons to get the rest of the North to rally his cause and also to show he's still 'got it'...but he will use that army to do both things...fight the Others and win the IT, and show the rest of Westeros that he's not finished.  The motives are almost too intertwined to pick one as primary and the other as secondary.

[sweetsunray]

21 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

Deserts Robert leaving him to those plotting against him, rejects his religion to join a cult, kills his brother during a truce with blood magic, burns his in-laws, plans to kill his nephew, interferes with the Night's Watch independence, burns his hungry men.

He does leave KL to amass a fleet, after he tried to help Jon Arryn in findong out about Cersei's betrayal to Robert in having another man's kids, and Jon Arryn ended up dead. It wasn't a heroic decision, correct, but a pragmatical one. We all know, including Stannis, that Robert would not have listened and didn't like to have Stannis around anyway. Heck, Robert was going to basically give the Lord of the Vale to Tywin and made Jaime Warden of the East. Stannis tried, he failed, and he pragmatically knew a lost cause when he saw it.

Stannis is and was an atheist. Atheists reject religions. Are you one of those who believe that atheists are evil? And even if he had been religious, since when is changing your mind on which religion you follow (cult or no) a sign of evil? Protestants (raised as Catholics) smashed hundreds of statues of saints in the corrupt Catholic churches in the 16th century in the low lands... which is a pity of historical art forever lost... But were they evil for it? I think the Spanish Inquisition was more evil than them.

A truce? There was no truce when his brother was killed. There was a parlay, during which Stannis offered to name Renly his heir before Shireen. Renly refused and the parlay ended. Each went to their camp and castle. Renly planned to ride out at dawn. He coudl have ridden out at night if he had wanted to. But he died before he could ride out. It is kinslaying, but not oathbreakng.

He executed a traitor, an in-law who made a deal with the Lannisters behind his back and was going to give the Lannisters a hostage, his daughter, on top of it. And the traitor fully admitted doing so. There are many ways to execute someone - hanging, beheading, quartering, burning, boiling, stoning, crucifixion, electric chair, the needle, squadron of guns... Dead is dead. Pretty much every manner of execution can be argued to be inhuman, even the needle. I abhor the death penalty, and I am very pleased I live in a country where it was struck out of the law decades ago. But I still recognize that lawmakers have the pure legal right to include it as one of the ways to punish criminals and traitors. So, if Stannis had beheaded the traitor instead of burning him he would not be evil in your eyes? And if that makes no difference for you, then is Ned evil? Is Jon evil? is Dany evil?

Plans to but didn't.

The NW independence.... hmmmm. The NW independence is a rather recent invention. Before Aegon the Conquerer, Westeros was not a united kingdom, but several kingdoms, with the North and the Starks being their direct neighbour... You can betcha that after the NK and the NW could not defend itself from an attack from the south, the NW were always closely allied to the Starks. They couldn't care about who ruled the Vale, Westerlands, Riverlands, Dorne, Reach, Stormlands, because those were too far off. But they would have cared very much not to antagonize the Starks (who often had to deal with the King-Beyond-the-Wall by themselves). Only after Aegon unites the kingdoms and creates the IT does it become important for the Targs that the NW aren't too buddy buddy with Starks anymore. GQ Alysane was a smart PR manager of the Targs, but she and her husband had little actual good intentions for the NW and the Starks when they arrived with a bunch of dragons to make the Starks give up the New Gift, and to build Deep Lake and lure them away from the Nightfort and more particularly the magical Black Gate. And that New Gift actually helped to weaken the defenses. NW don't have time to look south and defend farmers. And since it wasn't part of the North anymore, Starks weren't allowed to man forts in the New Gift with second or third sons, warriors who would have guarded the farmers from wildling raids. So, the New Gift emptied fairly quickly. It was neither a food source anymore nor a revenue source for the NW. Or how about creating a prestigious KG? There could only be 7, but to get in they had to prove loyalty at court and prowess in tourneys. So, you have all those 2nd and 3rd sons who previously joined the NW for prestige and honor and heroism suddenly flocking KL and joust at tourneys there. Why do you think the NW plumeted from 10k brothers to less than 1000 in less than 300 years. The whole NW independence was only in the interest of the king on the IT and the Targs messed with the NW numbers and the protection in the North. Stannis saved the NW's ass against the wildlings... the sole one to heed the call for aid. He's repairing the Nightfort (with that magical Black Gate) and manning the Wall again with seasoned fighters, because the NW can only man 3. He's also the first one to recognize that wildlings simply seek to flee the WW and if given the chance to get a better life than the one they had north of the Wall (like farm better and less frozen lands) can be integrated.

He executes cannibals.

21 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

As for being a liar. He claims Melisandre was with him in his tent when Courtney Penrose died when she was with Davos birthing a shadow assassin.

Cna you give me a quote? Chapter? Asking because I wish to verify.

[good girl]

This truce.

"I will give you this night to rethink your folly, Renly. Strike your banners and come to me before dawn, and I will grant you Storm's End and your old seat on the council and even name you my heir until a son is born to me."

That night, before dawn, a shadow produced by Stannis and Melisandre kills Renly.

Typical Stannis, says one thing and does another.

[sweetsunray]

32 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

1. AA is directly linked to the Lord of Light. I don't see how he could believe in one but not the other.

2. If Shireen's sacrifice was a way to defeat the White Walkers, Melisandre would have done that at the Wall without asking Stannis's permission. I don't think defeating the White Walkers is that simple. Stannis needed to sacrifice Shireen to defeat the Boltons, which would have given him the opportunity to unite the North and take the Throne. With a united kingdom led by Stannis, they could defeat the White Walkers.

3. Stannis needs a larger army to take on the Lannisters and with Robb Stark dead, he believes he would be able to win the northerners to his cause. He believes saving the Wall and defeating the wildlings would be good propaganda.

4. Evidence ot support my claim.

1. No it's not. AA-reborn is a prophecy from Asshai. People at Asshai aren't red priests. Mel mentions several times that the prophecy's source is Asshai, not the Lord of Light. Mel and other red priests try to conflate the two, but Stannis is smart enough to know the difference. 

2. Well that was wrong, wasn't it. Besides Stannis does not need to sacrifice Shireen to defeat the Boltons in the situation he's in in the show. He just should have used his brains and his battle expertise everybody else claimed he had.

3. If Roose is a turncloak once, he can be a turncloak twice.

4. Oonly if you ignore evidence to the contrary... It's called cherry-picking.

[Dragon in the North]

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Why can't it be both?  Everyone in Westeros is completely biased against the wildlings.  So, of course Mel's vision+NW are his kind of guys, dour rule followers who have no friends or family, LOL and everyone hates the wildlings, it's a win win, he helps the NW and recruits the wildlings to fight for him.  He is definitely going after Boltons to get the rest of the North to rally his cause and also to show he's still 'got it'...but he will use that army to do both things...fight the Others and win the IT, and show the rest of Westeros that he's not finished.  The motives are almost too intertwined to pick one as primary and the other as secondary.

It can be both. I simply believe the book doesn't do a good job of relaying Stannis's intentions in the North, and whether he is there for the Throne or the White Walkers.