It really sucks to be Stannis

[John Doe]

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) Renly's agenda was securing the throne for House Baratheon. You give no valid reason for Stannis not to trust Ned or Barristan with the information he was sitting on.

2) Stannis deserved nothing. Certainly not the inheritance of Roberts children. Second sons are supposed to serve their brothers, his son and grandson without complaint. What did Brynden get? What did Benjen get?

3) Storms End was not Stannis' birthright. That was Joffreys. Stannis was just a greedy ingrate.

Brynden didn't obey his brother and I'm pretty sure Benjen went to the NW voluntarily. 

[Marco van Panter]

On 23.4.2016 at 6:16 PM, Minsc said:

1. Stannis is an average to good commander, he is no where near the greatest commander of his time with Robert, Tywin, and Robb all being superior to him.  He is most likely on Randyll Tarly's level.  He didn't defeat the Ironborn alone instead Stannis had under him both the Royal Fleet and the Redwyne Fleets.  Fleets that alone outnumber the Iron Fleet thus he had a huge advantage in numbers.

You mean this Tywin?: "I have felt from the beginning that Stannis was a greater danger than all the others combined."
And Tarly is, after all, the only one who beat Robert in battle.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, John Doe said:

Brynden didn't obey his brother and I'm pretty sure Benjen went to the NW voluntarily. 

Oberyn, Tyrion and Kevan. Can you name one brother who got anything near as good as Stannis. He was an ingrate.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

Brynden didn't obey his brother and I'm pretty sure Benjen went to the NW voluntarily. 

That is nonsense. Just check the history of the Targaryen kings. No second sons got any lordship or fancy castle of their own. Prince Maekar later on was a huge exception, not to mention that he was a fourth son and so technically was treated much better than Aerys and Rhaegel who didn't get anything.

In addition, just check how things are with other houses. No second son gets anything. Robar Royce is the perfect example for this. His father and elder brother don't even give him some incomes of his own, he has earn himself a living by joining Renly.

Stannis has no right to complain. He has no right to Storm's End and no right to the Handship. He should have shut up and done his duty. Instead he abandoned his brother to his enemies and plotted to kill his brother's wife and legal children to take his brother's throne for himself.

The fact that he has an excuse for this - his belief that Cersei's children aren't Robert's seed - doesn't make him a nice guy. He still intended to kill Cersei and her children. And any moral right he might have had to challenge Joffrey's claim he actually lost when he decided to not tell Robert/Ned/Renly his suspicions about Cersei. You may not be as guilty as the actual criminal when you do not report a crime you witnessed or think happened but you are guilty anyway.

Stannis betrayed his brother and king by doing nothing. This is actually a crime because as vassal and brother to the king it was Stannis' duty to help and protect him and his crown.

Lysa did something similar when she abandoned and betrayed her family (Hoster, Edmure, Catelyn, Robb, etc.) during the War of the Five Kings but she only had a moral obligation to stand by and defend her family. Stannis also had a legal obligation to his king and liege.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

That is nonsense. Just check the history of the Targaryen kings. No second sons got any lordship or fancy castle of his own. Prince Maekar later on was a huge exception, not to mention that he was a fourth son and so technically was treated much better than Aerys and Rhaegel who didn't get anything.

In addition, just check how things are with other houses. No second son gets anything. Robar Royce is the perfect example for this. His father and elder brother don't even give him some incomes of his own, he has earn himself a living by joining Renly.

Stannis has no right to complain. He has no right to Storm's End and no right to the Handship. He should have shut up and done his duty. Instead he abandoned his brother to his enemies and plotted to kill his brother's wife and legal children to take his brother's throne for himself.

The fact that he has an excuse for this - his belief that Cersei's children aren't Robert's seed - doesn't make him a nice guy. He still intended to kill Cersei and her children. And any moral right he might have had to challenge Joffrey's claim he actually lost when he decided to not tell Robert/Ned/Renly his suspicions about Cersei. You may not be as guilty as the actual criminal when you do not report a crime you witnessed or think happened but you are guilty anyway.

Stannis betrayed his brother and king by doing nothing. This is actually a crime because as vassal and brother to the king it was Stannis' duty to help and protect him and his crown.

Lysa did something similar when she abandoned and betrayed her family (Hoster, Edmure, Catelyn, Robb, etc.) during the War of the Five Kings but she only had a moral obligation to stand by and defend her family. Stannis also had a legal obligation to his king and liege.

Yes, Lysa had a moral obligayion to defend her family (her son that is). Aside from that, I agree with you.

[OuttaOldtown]

Yes, he truly sucks..

[Springwatch]

22 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Yes, Lysa had a moral obligayion to defend her family (her son that is). Aside from that, I agree with you.

Lysa had a moral obligation to look after the country she was supposed to be ruling.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Yes, Lysa had a moral obligayion to defend her family (her son that is). Aside from that, I agree with you.

I actually agree with you there. But one can say she also had a moral obligation to support and defend her extended family. Just as Robb did when he called his banners to defend his Tully kin down in the Riverlands.

4 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Lysa had a moral obligation to look after the country she was supposed to be ruling.

That is actually not really true. Rulers in medieval societies were under no real obligation to care about the well-being of their subjects. They more or less owned them and were not responsible to anyone aside from the monarch, their kin, and, to a degree, their lordly subjects.

[Springwatch]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually not really true. Rulers in medieval societies were under no real obligation to care about the well-being of their subjects. They more or less owned them and were not responsible to anyone aside from the monarch, their kin, and, to a degree, their lordly subjects.

An act is moral, or it isn't - Lysa would have to weigh the benefit to her friends against the sacrifice of the Vale people. (I don't suppose she ever did.)

Stannis can use the moral argument too. A country without a clear succession is in danger of falling into prolonged civil war, with great suffering to the people (as in fact happened).  Joff's claim to the throne is shaky because his Lannister looks betray his true heritage. This gives the pretext for any pretender to seize the throne - it would be better if the man with the strongest claim took over and closed the argument down.

[John Doe]

On 29.5.2016 at 2:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is nonsense. Just check the history of the Targaryen kings. No second sons got any lordship or fancy castle of their own. Prince Maekar later on was a huge exception, not to mention that he was a fourth son and so technically was treated much better than Aerys and Rhaegel who didn't get anything.

In addition, just check how things are with other houses. No second son gets anything. Robar Royce is the perfect example for this. His father and elder brother don't even give him some incomes of his own, he has earn himself a living by joining Renly.

Stannis has no right to complain. He has no right to Storm's End and no right to the Handship. He should have shut up and done his duty. Instead he abandoned his brother to his enemies and plotted to kill his brother's wife and legal children to take his brother's throne for himself.

The fact that he has an excuse for this - his belief that Cersei's children aren't Robert's seed - doesn't make him a nice guy. He still intended to kill Cersei and her children. And any moral right he might have had to challenge Joffrey's claim he actually lost when he decided to not tell Robert/Ned/Renly his suspicions about Cersei. You may not be as guilty as the actual criminal when you do not report a crime you witnessed or think happened but you are guilty anyway.

Stannis betrayed his brother and king by doing nothing. This is actually a crime because as vassal and brother to the king it was Stannis' duty to help and protect him and his crown.

Lysa did something similar when she abandoned and betrayed her family (Hoster, Edmure, Catelyn, Robb, etc.) during the War of the Five Kings but she only had a moral obligation to stand by and defend her family. Stannis also had a legal obligation to his king and liege.

Again, that's not the point. Stannis wasn't angry at Robert because he thought his castle was too small. He was angry because Renly, who was younger and did nothing, got more than Robert cared to keep for his children or give to Stannis, the older brother. 

"Instead he abandoned his brother to his enemies and plotted to kill his brother's wife and legal children to take his brother's throne for himself". Well, he didn't do that. He didn't try to usurp Robert and after his death the crown was his. The children aren't legal just because few people recognize they are falseborn. A crime isn't less of a crime if you are good at hiding it. 

Stannis didn't do nothing, he went to Jon Arryn and after he died he gathered his swords at Dragonstone to be in a stronger position against the Lannisters. He actually prolonged his life by not inquiring after Jon Arryn's death. 

Lysa's case was entirely different. She had no reason not to help Robb except for fear for her own life. 

[Sullen]

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

 

@Sullen

Renly is perfectly fine with killing Stannis during the war (just as Stannis is with killing Renly) and this extends to Cersei and her children, too. If Renly is okay with murdering Daenerys Targaryen (who is neither an immediate threat to Robert's crown nor guilty of any crime aside from her very existence) then I see no basis for you speculation about Joff or any of Cersei's children (or Cersei herself) being spared. Why would Renly want to do that? Had he taken KL and captured Cersei and her children he would have been able to kill them all.

Renly is fine with killing Stannis because Stannis has made it known he wanted him dead.

As for Daenerys, she was absolutely a threat towards Robert's crown as we can see from her own chapters, a preemptive was absolutely justified.

As for no basis for what I am advancing, I highly disagree. Renly (and to a lesser extent, the Tyrells) is a character obsessed with having a good image, even moreso than Robert was, he would most definitively not spoil his image as the benevolent and magnanimous Prince by having his dead brother's children butchered, he would show mercy, even if it's not exactly the best course of action.

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

Tywin would have continued the war in the name of Cersei's eldest surviving child if Renly had just taken (some of) them hostage, and Joff was clearly to young (and certainly not willing) to go to the Wall. Any oath Renly would have forced him to swear would have been worth nothing if there had still been armies in the field fighting in his name. Only the permanent removal of Robert's line (and Stannis, if he insisted on being king) would have secured Renly's throne.

Tywin is not going to keep fighting against a united Iron Throne.

He doesn't need to remove Robert's line to secure his reign, Joffrey shipped to the Wall, and Tommen and Myrcella well in control, and he's essentially safe. Nobody cares about Stannis either, if not for Melissandre, him claiming the Throne is entirely trivial. (But would probably end up with his head on a spike)

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

The man jokes makes fun of a lot things but he would have to be a butcher of children and kinslayer to take the Iron Throne - and I really don't think he had a problem with that.

I highly disagree, one doesn't have to murder everyone in front of him in the line of succession to claim the Throne, his claim on the Throne having nothing to do with the line of succession after all.

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

I also think you greatly misjudge Joffrey's character and the potential danger a king like he would be to anyone he thinks has once wronged him. Any pretext Renly or Ned cite for arresting the royal family wouldn't convince Joffrey, and the idea that this could even be done without bloodshed is ridiculous. Sandor Clegane and the Lannister-inclined KG would not relent - perhaps even Barristan Selmy would fight to the death because, you know, neither the Hand nor the king's brother have any right to arrest the queen and her children.

They are not arresting the royal children, they are moving them (and taking hold of them) following the King's death.

The Hand, Lord Protector, and regent absolutely has the right to move the royal family if he thinks it's the right thing to do.

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

Joff would remember all that and be hellbent to destroy those people as soon as he was in charge. Not to mention that Tywin wouldn't suffer Ned Stark as regent of his grandson regardless what Robert had decreed. He would continue his war in Joff's name and eventually knock at the gates of KL. Ned and Renly certainly could not use Cersei and her children as hostages if they proclaim to rule in the name of King Joffrey, right?

Again, Tywin Lannister only acts when he thinks he has the backing of the Crown, he's not going to fight a united Westeros.

As for Joffrey holding Joffrey's actions against him, I highly doubt that, and even if he does, so what? The court would effectively be cleared of Lannister influence, replaced by Reachmen and Stormlanders. Renly would be the real power in court, not Joffrey, pretty much the same dynamics Joffrey had with Tywin in ASoS.

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

Renly was not stupid enough to believe that he could rise high at Joffrey's court. He would have tried to solve the Lannister problem permanently by getting rid of Cersei and her children, and then he would have crowned himself just as he did.

He wouldn't rise high, he would control the King and the court, no need to sully himself with murder, once Cersei is chased off of King's Landing and Eddard is the Regent, he's the top dog.

Crowning himself is considerably more risky, which is why it's only his last resort in the books.

On 28/05/2016 at 4:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

There is no hint that his own coronation was some sort of self-preservation. He did it, because he could. And he wanted to be king because he wanted to be king. And he certainly did not only want to be king after Ned Stark rejected his offer.

Except that every single one of his actions can be perfectly explained by his desire for self-preservation, and he shows no sign of wanting to be King (or really wanting any more power) before Eddard rejects his offer.

Not to mention that his last words in AGoT are akin to "Then it's too late for the both of us" and "The Lannisters have no mercy", it's very much what someone who fears for his life would say.

[Lord Varys]

@John Doe

He still had no right to complain. What the king gives or doesn't give to his youngest brother isn't Stannis concern. Just as it is no business of my middle brother what I give to my youngest brother.

@Sullen

I just don't buy your nice view of Renly. You can, perhaps, uphold the position that we'll never know what Renly wanted because we don't know his POV and thoughts. But just because he didn't tell Ned that he wanted to kill Cersei and her children doesn't mean he didn't want to do that.

You can buy his self-preservation story - Catelyn didn't. She saw through his facade at Bitterbridge. The man abandoned Ned to his enemies.

The idea that the court and government would remain in control of Renly for all time if he and Ned had seized power is very naive. Ned might not even have remained the Lord Regent for the entire time (you know, because he actually wanted to offer the crown to Stannis). The closer Joff's sixteenth nameday came the more people would have looked to the king for leadership and commands, not the Hand or Renly. Even Renly's own people had done so. Joff was never a puppet, after all.

And Tywin was at war with all of Westeros in the beginning of the war. Everybody was technically his enemy at that point. He didn't care. The idea that he would have bent the knee/not done anything in his power to free or avenge his daughter and grandchildren is just ridiculous. He would have succeeded or died trying.

[Sullen]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I just don't buy your nice view of Renly. You can, perhaps, uphold the position that we'll never know what Renly wanted because we don't know his POV and thoughts. But just because he didn't tell Ned that he wanted to kill Cersei and her children doesn't mean he didn't want to do that.

Nice? No.

I simply do not believe him to have plotted to murder his whole family to make his way to the Throne, George said he liked Robert, it would contradict his first plot to marry Marge to Robert, and murdering children is bad publicity, which Renly thrives on publicity, it's probably his own defining aspect, that, and the peach, which represents being content in life. (Which he was, even before crowning himself, so the notion that he craved the Throne while Robert was alive seems completely ridiculous to me)

He was an asshole and a bully though, but not one that planned to usurp the Throne and kill any family member in his way to get to it, that's the show version of Renly. The book character is more pragmatic and reasonable.

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You can buy his self-preservation story - Catelyn didn't. She saw through his facade at Bitterbridge. The man abandoned Ned to his enemies.

Catelyn was a grieving widow, of course she's going to be mad that Renly decided to save himself rather than help Eddard.

Also, she doesn't put the self-preservation story into question, she says Eddard might have survived had Renly helped him, they might just as well have been butchered.

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that the court and government would remain in control of Renly for all time if he and Ned had seized power is very naive. Ned might not even have remained the Lord Regent for the entire time (you know, because he actually wanted to offer the crown to Stannis). The closer Joff's sixteenth nameday came the more people would have looked to the king for leadership and commands, not the Hand or Renly. Even Renly's own people had done so. Joff was never a puppet, after all.

Renly's plan does not include for Eddard to give the crown to Stannis, which as we know would fuck up everything for everyone.

And Joffrey was most definitively a puppet King, Tywin was the man pulling all the strings, as Renly and Eddard would have been in what Renly envisaged.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And Tywin was at war with all of Westeros in the beginning of the war. Everybody was technically his enemy at that point. He didn't care. The idea that he would have bent the knee/not done anything in his power to free or avenge his daughter and grandchildren is just ridiculous. He would have succeeded or died trying.

He wasn't at war with a united Westeros, only divided factions that all saw him as the priority.

There's a big difference in facing one massive united faction, and several smaller ones (that will end up in-fighting anyways).

[Lord Varys]

@Sullen

Joff wasn't willing to take that shit from Tywin for much longer. A puppet king doesn't remain a puppet for long. Just look how Alicent and Otto seated Aegon II on the Iron Throne, essentially as their puppet. The man grew accustomed to power very quickly, was prone to Joffrey-like outbursts and eventually ripped the chain of office from his grandfather's neck in front of the entire court.

What do you think Joff would have done when he came into his throne and Tywin tried to mess with him? And do you really think people would have obeyed Tywin more than the king?

[Lion of the West]

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Sullen

Joff wasn't willing to take that shit from Tywin for much longer. A puppet king doesn't remain a puppet for long. Just look how Alicent and Otto seated Aegon II on the Iron Throne, essentially as their puppet. The man grew accustomed to power very quickly, was prone to Joffrey-like outbursts and eventually ripped the chain of office from his grandfather's neck in front of the entire court.

What do you think Joff would have done when he came into his throne and Tywin tried to mess with him? And do you really think people would have obeyed Tywin more than the king?

Just to point out that Aegon II was no more a puppet of Alicent and Ser Otto, or anyone else, than Rhaenyra was a puppet of Prince Daemon and Lord Corlys.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Just to point out that Aegon II was no more a puppet of Alicent and Ser Otto, or anyone else, than Rhaenyra was a puppet of Prince Daemon and Lord Corlys.

Aegon II was a puppet in the sense that he was put forth, crowned, and anointed not by the will of his late father, the king, nor of his own free will and design (if we take certain aspects of history at face value) but by a cabal of people at court that intended to rule through him, among them his own mother and grandfather as well as certain members of the Small Council.

But that didn't work out as those people thought it would. Aegon II had his own head, just as Joff did.

The point here was to put out a historical parallel. Tywin and others thought they could rule through Joffrey but that wouldn't have worked. Not after the point the boy came of age (or perhaps even some time before that). Littlefinger saw that clearly enough, and that's why he participated in the boy's murder.

Had Tywin (or anyone else) ever intended to teach King Joffrey 'a lesson' the boy would have remembered and eventually paid that guy back in kind. Presumably by torturing him quite severely before finally allowing him to die. His own uncle, mother, and maternal grandfather included.

[Lion of the West]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II was a puppet in the sense that he was put forth, crowned, and anointed not by the will of his late father, the king, nor of his own free will and design (if we take certain aspects of history at face value) but by a cabal of people at court that intended to rule through him, among them his own mother and grandfather as well as certain members of the Small Council.

But that didn't work out as those people thought it would. Aegon II had his own head, just as Joff did.

The point here was to put out a historical parallel. Tywin and others thought they could rule through Joffrey but that wouldn't have worked. Not after the point the boy came of age (or perhaps even some time before that). Littlefinger saw that clearly enough, and that's why he participated in the boy's murder.

Had Tywin (or anyone else) ever intended to teach King Joffrey 'a lesson' the boy would have remembered and eventually paid that guy back in kind. Presumably by torturing him quite severely before finally allowing him to die. His own uncle, mother, and maternal grandfather included.

If we take it at face value which I remind yourself that you yopurself do not do at 90% of the time. Furthermore Aegon II quickly proved himself to be of an independent will and thus can not be considered a puppet. Being a puppet is not the same as accepting advice from other people, and thus I cannot see that he ever was a puppet king.

But I can totally see Joffrey not getting the lesson to become a better king and create his own downfall within a short while.

[No Regard Carrenard]

I love Stannis, but by rights Robert could have given Storms End to Tommenn and Dragonstone to Joffery and nobody would have found this scandalous. 

[Stag_legion]

Of course there was no legal obligation for Robert to give Stannis Storm's end, but there was a moral debt. Stannis held the castle at all costs and he indirectly helped Robert win the war. That not even mentioning Stannis' achievement in Greyjoy rebellion.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

16 minutes ago, Stag_legion said:

Of course there was no legal obligation for Robert to give Stannis Storm's end, but there was a moral debt. Stannis held the castle at all costs and he indirectly helped Robert win the war. That not even mentioning Stannis' achievement in Greyjoy rebellion.

The Greyjoy Rebellion came after Robert had already given away Dragonstone and Storm's End.

And what moral obligation? He made his brother one of the most powerful Lords in Westeros.