It really sucks to be Stannis

[Minsc]

17 hours ago, Red Helm said:

The more I think of it, the more double standards that come to mind, such as Stannis being knocked for having his fleet augmented by Redwyne at Fair Isle, but not Robb for having his cavalry augmented by the Riverlords at the Whispering Wood, or the Tully assistance at the Camps

Don't Stannis fans make similar arguments when knocking other commanders all the time?  How often does one hear this dismiss Tywin's victories by arguing that he had superior numbers to his opponents.  Similarly, despite there not being evidence for that claim one sees Tarly victory over Robert dismissed because he possibly had superior numbers.

[Red Helm]

37 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Don't Stannis fans make similar arguments when knocking other commanders all the time?  How often does one hear this dismiss Tywin's victories by arguing that he had superior numbers to his opponents.  Similarly, despite there not being evidence for that claim one sees Tarly victory over Robert dismissed because he possibly had superior numbers.

Probably. I do not speak for Stannis fans, only myself (I do not even subscribe to this 'The Mannis!' culture). I am against any double standard when discussing the commanders in the series anyhow.

I am fine with deep analysis of the factors that help certain commanders ascertain victory, like the average Wilding being inferior to the average Westerosi knight/man-at-arms man for man, Jaime's arrogance leading up to the Whispering Wood, and Roose's likely treacherous conduct at the Green Fork. I merely get irritated when we use those extraneous factors to knock certain commanders but ignore them when it comes to others. In this case, it happened to be with Robb and Stannis

[Winter's Cold]

2 hours ago, A Man Has Said said:

Stannis, as many above have pointed out, was a whiner who expected obeisance from everyone without having earned it. But here are the main two points against him to my mind.

 

1) Far from being 'all about duty,' Stannis fled King's Landing a couple of days after Robert left for Winterfell in Book 1, and didn't return to the mainland until he did so only to battle his younger brother at Storm's End. Nowhere in the book is Stannis' motive for this explained, but BEFORE Robert's death we hear (Arya overhears, via Varys, actually) that Stannis is 'gathering swords.' Why? It's beyond comprehension. Clearly his DUTY was to serve on the Small Council in his brother's absence. ALL explanations by Stannis' supporters are based on pure speculation, NONE on the actual text of the books.

 

2) It's a small matter, but goes directly to Stannis' character and the root of all his problems and complaints. In the books he declares (more than once, if I'm not mistaken) that 'A king has no friends, he only has subjects.' But the truth of it is, Stannis didn't have any friends LONG before he was king. He never had any friends because his personality was so intensely self-centered that he expected others to give to him, but never gave back. As such he was the author of his own misfortunes.

Here's a clear example of that second point. In A Clash of Kings, Stannis is in conversation with Caitlyn, the very recent widow of Ned Stark. He immediately declares, "Ned Stark was no friend to me" and Caitlyn reminds him that it was Ned who lifted the siege of Storm's End when Stannis was at the point of starvation. But Stannis gives Ned no credit for that, because, "Ned was only doing his duty, under orders from Robert." Well, what's wrong with that attitude? A couple of things.

- first of all, he doesn't give any credit or gratitude to Robert for giving those orders either. Not to mention that at the time it happened it's unlikely that Robert had even been crowned King yet. The Rebellion was probably still being led to some degree by a council consisting of Ned, Robert, John Arryn and Hoster Tully. So credit could have been due to all those people for recognizing and responding to Stannis' plight.

- secondly, Stannis DOES give credit to himself for his actions in dealing with the Ironborn. But wasn't that under orders too, and just doing his duty? Of course it was. So, he's quite miserly when it comes to giving others credit, but generous when it comes to his own accomplishments.

Clearly, whatever else you say about Stannis, he was not a nice guy. He is written as a villain - not on the order of some of the much worse villains in the series like Tywin Lannister or Roose Bolton, but a villain nonetheless. He kills his own brother in order to gain control of the Stormlands forces, then squanders those forces at the Battle of the Blackwater. His actions lead to the defeat of Robb's forces in the Riverlands, and victory for the Lannisters. If he had just stayed on Dragonstone, a coalition of Robb's and Renly's forces would have destroyed the Lannisters, I have little doubt of that. Instead, his meddling broke up that coalition and forced the formation of one between the Lannisters and the Tyrrells. Well done Stannis. Well done indeed.

Finally, by abandoning Robert at a critical time, and by killing Renly, and having no heir himself, he brought about the fall of the House of Baratheon. From an in-universe perspective, that's about the worst crime that any member of a Great House could commit.

I agree with all of this. Especially when you consider family relations, Stannis shows himself to be the worst Baratheon brother and perhaps the worst Baratheon in history. He forsakes his ancestors by burning both the Septs and the Godswood. Abandons his older brother in King's Landing and murders his younger brother outside Storm's End. Stannis was also the one who instigated the conflict in the latter scenario. He then loses the most important battle of the war at Blackwater shattering the Stormlands forces. He then flees back to dragonstone and eventually abandons the Stormlands to their fate. He will also be the last Baratheon lord if both him and Shireen perish in the North and none of Robert's bastards are legitimized. If his campaign fails, then he will cement his place as the worst Baratheon lord in history. 

It's no coincidence that Renly stayed at Robert's side till he died while Stannis was hiding in Dragonstone gathering swords.

[Red Helm]

On 4/29/2016 at 3:59 AM, A Man Has Said said:

Stannis, as many above have pointed out, was a whiner who expected obeisance from everyone without having earned it. But here are the main two points against him to my mind.

Earning obedience is irreverent as far as duty is concerned. He is the rightful king, therefore duty demands the rest of the Seven Kingdoms obey him. Your attempt to make his expectations (black-white as they are) sound like that of a petulant, spoiled brat ring hollow.

Quote

1) Far from being 'all about duty,' Stannis fled King's Landing a couple of days after Robert left for Winterfell in Book 1, and didn't return to the mainland until he did so only to battle his younger brother at Storm's End. Nowhere in the book is Stannis' motive for this explained, but BEFORE Robert's death we hear (Arya overhears, via Varys, actually) that Stannis is 'gathering swords.' Why? It's beyond comprehension. Clearly his DUTY was to serve on the Small Council in his brother's absence. ALL explanations by Stannis' supporters are based on pure speculation, NONE on the actual text of the books.

For argument's sake:

Of course Stannis has a strict adherence to duty. A moment where this faltered under extremely special circumstances (psychologically complex circumstances too) does not change this. It was the wrong choice in the end, but not one without rationality and sympathy. In short, it was a very human choice. Even a man as good as Ned has hypocrisy shrouding a theme central to his arc.

He failed Robert in the end (not that he's the first), but he is indeed driven by duty.

But if I'm being pedantic, I do not recall anything suggesting that Stannis-by strict definitions-abandoned his duty as Admiral of the Narrow Sea. I do not recall anything suggesting Stannis could not carry out his duties by residing at his Dragonstone seat.

As for Stannis gathering arms, I interpreted that as a precaution taken by a man at a loss of what to do and if things, to put it informally, go tits up. I do not find any assertion that such actions have a vile, grasping connotation to hold much water frankly.

Edit: turns out Stannis gathering arms is something Varys assumes. He assumes Lysa is doing the same, yet she is doing no such thing. There's also the fact that gathering arms is merely a way to protect himself from Lannister catspaws. So sorry, but this seeming aspersion that Stannis was gathering arms for a nefarious purpose is ringing hollower by the second.

Quote

2) It's a small matter, but goes directly to Stannis' character and the root of all his problems and complaints. In the books he declares (more than once, if I'm not mistaken) that 'A king has no friends, he only has subjects.' But the truth of it is, Stannis didn't have any friends LONG before he was king. He never had any friends because his personality was so intensely self-centered that he expected others to give to him, but never gave back. As such he was the author of his own misfortunes.

No, it's because his blunt, harsh personality is at complete ends with highborn culture and attitudes. This is explained several times in the books. It's even shown after the Penrose negotiations when Stannis shocks the highborn by being so blunt and harsh with them. Being the antithesis to southron highborn culture is even emphasized by the fact that any rich, lavish clothing he wears puts him out of his element, as he's far more comfortable with simple leather and woolen clothing. One of the reasons he cares for Davos is because of his honesty, something which George R. R. Martin stresses does not come easy to the flattering highborn that surround Stannis, and thus something he struggles to tolerate (I vaguely recall his policy of every man-high and low-paying his due being rooted in his contempt for highborn attitudes and culture).

As for not giving anything back to his friends, how do you explain the rewards he has lavished on Davos? A knighthood, lands, and a keep, and then later the Hand of the King, Admiral of the Narrow Sea, and Lord of the Rainwood. All this for a lowborn smuggler turned knight I must add. In The Winds of Winter preview chapter, he makes a point of returning Arya (Jeyne) to Jon because he feels compelled to repay the debt he feels he owes. Such notions of debt would never occur to a selfish brat that never gives. Never giving back you say? Really?

Quote

Here's a clear example of that second point. In A Clash of Kings, Stannis is in conversation with Caitlyn, the very recent widow of Ned Stark. He immediately declares, "Ned Stark was no friend to me" and Caitlyn reminds him that it was Ned who lifted the siege of Storm's End when Stannis was at the point of starvation. But Stannis gives Ned no credit for that, because, "Ned was only doing his duty, under orders from Robert." Well, what's wrong with that attitude? A couple of things.

- secondly, Stannis DOES give credit to himself for his actions in dealing with the Ironborn. But wasn't that under orders too, and just doing his duty? Of course it was. So, he's quite miserly when it comes to giving others credit, but generous when it comes to his own accomplishments.

Quote? I can only recall Stannis mentioning Fair Isle to illustrate the wealth of differences between his and Ramsay's military acumen and how well he served Robert to juxtaposition with the paltry rewards. Besides, there's a world of difference between Ned relaying information and Stannis smashing the Ironborn.

One can do their duty without it warranting much credit beyond that. And likewise one can do their duty with it warranting credit. It depends on the context, and I see a relief of Storm's End-Battle of Fair Isle equivalency as a weak one.

Quote

Clearly, whatever else you say about Stannis, he was not a nice guy. He is written as a villain - not on the order of some of the much worse villains in the series like Tywin Lannister or Roose Bolton, but a villain nonetheless. He kills his own brother in order to gain control of the Stormlands forces, then squanders those forces at the Battle of the Blackwater. His actions lead to the defeat of Robb's forces in the Riverlands, and victory for the Lannisters. If he had just stayed on Dragonstone, a coalition of Robb's and Renly's forces would have destroyed the Lannisters, I have little doubt of that. Instead, his meddling broke up that coalition and forced the formation of one between the Lannisters and the Tyrrells. Well done Stannis. Well done indeed.

Finally, by abandoning Robert at a critical time, and by killing Renly, and having no heir himself, he brought about the fall of the House of Baratheon. From an in-universe perspective, that's about the worst crime that any member of a Great House could commit.

1. Stannis is unaware of his involvement in Renly's death.
2. The Lannister/Tyrell relief force does not mitigate the fact that his tactics at Blackwater were quite sound. Nor does "squandering" a force make one evil.
3. Theon sealed the Stark downfall, not Stannis. As for this coalition you speak of, it never existed. There was never any tangible Winterfell/Riverrun-Highgarden coalition to speak of. Furthermore it's absolutely disingenuous to blame the war's outcome entirely on Stannis. There were a myriad of factors from Theon all the way to Edmure for God's sake. But for argument's sake, let's say Stannis actions led to this illusive coalition being shattered and scoring a Lannister-Tyrell victory... that it's all because of Stannis.... that doesn't make him evil. That means he made some grievous errors. You're also neglecting the fact that you have the luxury of being a spectator and possessing the power of hindsight during rereads.
4. Why the hell should Stannis let his brother rob him of his right? Stop shoving your 21st century mindset into matters. If you have a quarrel with Stannis refusing to be robbed, it's more of a quarrel with the entire system of Westeros. Honestly, this lack of basic understanding of why Stannis felt compelled to act seems indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding of how Westeros works.
5. Absolutely ridiculous assertion. Crime implies intention. It must be something tangible, not a loose, abstract definition you've attached to Stannis because he's one factor in a myriad that has led to House Baratheon's current predicament. Not to mention it's a gross oversimplification of George R. R. Martin's writing as no single Baratheon brother is exclusively to blame for their strained relations and the House's current precarious predicament.

[Red Helm]

5 hours ago, Winter's Cold said:

I agree with all of this. Especially when you consider family relations, Stannis shows himself to be the worst Baratheon brother and perhaps the worst Baratheon in history. He forsakes his ancestors by burning both the Septs and the Godswood. Abandons his older brother in King's Landing and murders his younger brother outside Storm's End. Stannis was also the one who instigated the conflict in the latter scenario. He then loses the most important battle of the war at Blackwater shattering the Stormlands forces. He then flees back to dragonstone and eventually abandons the Stormlands to their fate. He will also be the last Baratheon lord if both him and Shireen perish in the North and none of Robert's bastards are legitimized. If his campaign fails, then he will cement his place as the worst Baratheon lord in history. 

It's no coincidence that Renly stayed at Robert's side till he died while Stannis was hiding in Dragonstone gathering swords.

1. No, he forsakes the Gods. He forsook the Gods when he was a boy. I also subscribe to the interpretation he is-unintentionally-conducting a revolution regarding the relationship between Gods and man.
2. I refer you to Miodrag's post. I am very sick of Stannis being lambasted as an evil this and that for withdrawing to Dragonstone.
3. Whether or not Stannis is aware of his involvement in Renly's death remains highly ambiguous. But why is it only Stannis lambasted for acting amorally but never Renly? Stannis is wrong for responding to Renly usurping him, but Renly isn't? Why is it always Stannis in the wrong for not bending to Renly in Stannis detractor's eyes but never Renly for refusing to recognize his brother's right and to bend the knee? Double standards.
4. Because Renly usurping his brother is totally fine. Stannis responding to that? Oh, what a demon! I suppose most people in Westeros must be evil for reacting to their birthright being stolen by a younger brother.
5. What the hell was he supposed to do with the Stormlands? Even if you do contrive a scenario, you neglect that fact that you're a spectator with so much wider knowledge and hindsight. Honestly, Stannis is now being derided as evil because he cannot pull off the impossible? I also love how saving the Wall is totally glossed over.
6. If memory serves, Renly stayed because he had a scheming angle once he discovered the twincest (in fact, I cannot even remember if was aware at all. I think he was at the very least). You also ignore the fundamental differences between Robert-Renly's relationship, and Stannis-Robert's relationship. Also, Renly fled before Robert died.

It seems like this concentrated effort to demonize Stannis is a response to the 'The Mannis!' culture that has risen, which, even as a fan of Stannis, I must conceded is highly obnoxious once the novelty wears off and simplifies his character to nothing more than a 'badass' extreme.

[John Doe]

10 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Again, I am not seeing your point. Stannis had provisions and even had outside help from the likes of Davos. The author and Stannis himself both agree that holding that castle for a year should be the norm for a capable commander.

What Stannis did was not unique and I have no idea why some of his fans are so sensitive to the fact that others could have done what he did.

His brother rewarded him, generously infact, sadly it was not good enough for Stannis but then nothing ever was. We see that from his memories about his bird.

You don't see the difference between having full granaries (which is what was the case with Storm's End when Stannis estimated how long Penrose could hold out) and having only half-full ones during a siege? And you realise the outside help only came when they already had to survive on rats and leather? Of course his onions saved them, but it was so close to the end of the siege that it's not comparable to having full granaries from the beginning. 

Nobody said that no other could have done what Stannis did. You try to downplay his feat as something anyone could/would do, which is wrong. It's impressive Stannis held out for so long and we didn't see any other commander doing something comparable in asoiaf. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

49 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 

Nobody said that no other could have done what Stannis did.

Actually yes, I have had Stannis fans on this forum argue just that. That no other Stormlord would have been capable of holding Storm's End like Stannis did.

49 minutes ago, John Doe said:

You don't see the difference between having full granaries (which is what was the case with Storm's End when Stannis estimated how long Penrose could hold out) and having only half-full ones during a siege? And you realise the outside help only came when they already had to survive on rats and leather? Of course his onions saved them, but it was so close to the end of the siege that it's not comparable to having full granaries from the beginning. 

I'm only going by the words of Stannis and the author. What Stannis did was good, but not extraordinary and certainly not something that could not have had the same result with or without Stannis.

Quote

You try to downplay his feat as something anyone could/would do, which is wrong.

Not anyone, just anyone competent.

Quote

It's impressive Stannis held out for so long and we didn't see any other commander doing something comparable in asoiaf. 

Storm's End is one of the strongest castles in Westeros. Stannis himself claims that Penrose could do the same. I'm sorry but I'm going to take the opinion of the author and Stannis himself on this one.

[The Drunkard]

Storm's End is significant in that it demonstrated his insane determination, not his tactical prowess. While other competent commanders could hold the castle against attack and keep their men disciplined, not many would still be holding out at the point where they're eating boot leather and book bindings. It's clearly impressive given the reputation he got from it, just not tactically (he didn't do anything wrong, there's just not much chance to show off).

[Sullen]

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

 

1. Stannis is unaware of his involvement in Renly's death.
2. The Lannister/Tyrell relief force does not mitigate the fact that his tactics at Blackwater were quite sound. Nor does "squandering" a force make one evil.
3. Theon sealed the Stark downfall, not Stannis. As for this coalition you speak of, it never existed. There was never any tangible Winterfell/Riverrun-Highgarden coalition to speak of. Furthermore it's absolutely disingenuous to blame the war's outcome entirely on Stannis. There were a myriad of factors from Theon all the way to Edmure for God's sake. But for argument's sake, let's say Stannis actions led to this illusive coalition being shattered and scoring a Lannister-Tyrell victory... that it's all because of Stannis.... that doesn't make him evil. That means he made some grievous errors. You're also neglecting the fact that you have the luxury of being a spectator and possessing the power of hindsight during rereads.
4. Why the hell should Stannis let his brother rob him of his right? Stop shoving your 21st century mindset into matters. If you have a quarrel with Stannis refusing to be robbed, it's more of a quarrel with the entire system of Westeros. Honestly, this lack of basic understanding of why Stannis felt compelled to act seems indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding of how Westeros works.
5. Absolutely ridiculous assertion. Crime implies intention. It must be something tangible, not a loose, abstract definition you've attached to Stannis because he's one factor in a myriad that has led to House Baratheon's current predicament. Not to mention it's a gross oversimplification of George R. R. Martin's writing as no single Baratheon brother is exclusively to blame for their strained relations and the House's current precarious predicament.

1. If you take everything the character says at face value, but it would be quite foolish to do so. All evidence points to him being in denial after committing kinslaying.

2. If you call leaving a massive hostile host at your back unchecked, delegating to imbeciles/green boys, and failing to properly scout the surroundings sound, then yeah, sure. I don't think so though.

3. No, Theon taking Winterfell did less than Stannis sending the Tyrells in Lannister arms, mate.

Winterfell-Riverrun-Storm's End-Highgarden never had time to happen, as Stannis murdered the only person that could have served as its basis.

Calling the Tyrell/Lannister alliance "illusive" is extremely disingenuous as well, it was quite apparent that once Renly was gone, Joffrey was the one the Tyrells would go to.

4. Because Stannis has a duty to protect the Realm, hasn't he? By slaying the quickest option to peace, he prolonged the war and indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

5. He's the main factor that led to House Baratheon's doom, and you seem to rob him of as much agency as possible at every turn. He willingly abandoned Robert, he willingly killed Renly, he willingly started a war he could not hope to win, ensuring his daughter's prospects are less than optimal, and he even played around with the idea to sacrifice his innocent bastard nephew.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

1. No, he forsakes the Gods. He forsook the Gods when he was a boy. I also subscribe to the interpretation he is-unintentionally-conducting a revolution regarding the relationship between Gods and man.

He burned the Gods of his people, which led to him losing support, and to the unjust execution of the honourable Lord Sunglass.

Now I don't think him turning his backs on the Gods was particularly evil, but it sure is dumb as far as Westerosi politics are concerned.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

1. I refer you to Miodrag's post. I am very sick of Stannis being lambasted as an evil this and that for withdrawing to Dragonstone.

I don't think it was motivated by evil, simply pettiness and cowardice, a desire to stick it up to his brother that was greater than his desire to do his duty.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

1. Whether or not Stannis is aware of his involvement in Renly's death remains highly ambiguous. But why is it only Stannis lambasted for acting amorally but never Renly? Stannis is wrong for responding to Renly usurping him, but Renly isn't? Why is it always Stannis in the wrong for not bending to Renly in Stannis detractor's eyes but never Renly for refusing to recognize his brother's right and to bend the knee? Double standards.

Highly? All the evidence except his own words point to him being aware of the scheme, and characters lie.

You fall into a victimhood complex here, Renly is isn't "never lambasted for acting amorally", in fact he's probably more criticized/vilified than Stannis is in that aspect, but oh well. Stannis is criticized because he crowned himself after Renly for one, Renly didn't know he would have to deal with Stannis when he crowned himself (he even expected Stannis to be an ally, as he tells Catelyn) while Stannis clearly knew he would have to go through Renly to take the Throne. Renly also had more support than Stannis, and therefore a better shot at defeating the Lannister forces, without mentioning that his claim derived from a break in the feudal contract by Joffrey/Cersei rather than in something seen as a ridiculous self-serving rumour.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

1. Because Renly usurping his brother is totally fine. Stannis responding to that? Oh, what a demon! I suppose most people in Westeros must be evil for reacting to their birthright being stolen by a younger brother.

As far as Renly is concerned, he's usurping Joffrey, not Stannis, and with a very valid reason.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

1. What the hell was he supposed to do with the Stormlands? Even if you do contrive a scenario, you neglect that fact that you're a spectator with so much wider knowledge and hindsight. Honestly, Stannis is now being derided as evil because he cannot pull off the impossible? I also love how saving the Wall is totally glossed over.

I don't think there's anything wrong with him leaving the Stormlands, it's the only thing he could have done at this point, so I think we agree here.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

1. If memory serves, Renly stayed because he had a scheming angle once he discovered the twincest (in fact, I cannot even remember if was aware at all. I think he was at the very least). You also ignore the fundamental differences between Robert-Renly's relationship, and Stannis-Robert's relationship. Also, Renly fled before Robert died.

That's in the show only.

Renly doesn't discover the twincest until he is already crowned, and a bit after he's attacked by Stannis. Whether Renly fled before Robert died or not is unknown, but it seems he was the very last person to see Robert alive, considering he heads towards to tower where Robert lay dying after Eddard refused his proposal, and Robert died shortly after having seen Eddard.

4 hours ago, Red Helm said:

It seems like this concentrated effort to demonize Stannis is a response to the 'The Mannis!' culture that has risen, which, even as a fan of Stannis, I must conceded is highly obnoxious once the novelty wears off and simplifies his character to nothing more than a 'badass' extreme.

It's not demonization of the character, it's recognizing him for the flawed, layered character he is instead of whitewashing his every action and praising him at every occasion.

Stannis is a man that wants to be a hero, he wants to be good, he wants to be dutiful, and just, he wants to be the Messiah and the Hero King, and strives towards becoming all of that, but his own shortcomings (pettiness, jealousy, egocentrism, hypocrisy) lead him to fail greatly at doing just that. He's a tragic character more akin to Jaime, Theon, and Tyrion (and eventually Dany I believe) than a stereotypically virtuous hero like Eddard, Jon, or his own right hand man, Davos.

[Wall Flower]

12 minutes ago, Sullen said:

1. If you take everything the character says at face value, but it would be quite foolish to do so. All evidence points to him being in denial after committing kinslaying.

2. If you call leaving a massive hostile host at your back unchecked, delegating to imbeciles/green boys, and failing to properly scout the surroundings sound, then yeah, sure. I don't think so though.

3. No, Theon taking Winterfell did less than Stannis sending the Tyrells in Lannister arms, mate.

Winterfell-Riverrun-Storm's End-Highgarden never had time to happen, as Stannis murdered the only person that could have served as its basis.

Calling the Tyrell/Lannister alliance "illusive" is extremely disingenuous as well, it was quite apparent that once Renly was gone, Joffrey was the one the Tyrells would go to.

4. Because Stannis has a duty to protect the Realm, hasn't he? By slaying the quickest option to peace, he prolonged the war and indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

5. He's the main factor that led to House Baratheon's doom, and you seem to rob him of as much agency as possible at every turn. He willingly abandoned Robert, he willingly killed Renly, he willingly started a war he could not hope to win, ensuring his daughter's prospects are less than optimal, and he even played around with the idea to sacrifice his innocent bastard nephew.

He burned the Gods of his people, which led to him losing support, and to the unjust execution of the honourable Lord Sunglass.

Now I don't think him turning his backs on the Gods was particularly evil, but it sure is dumb as far as Westerosi politics are concerned.

I don't think it was motivated by evil, simply pettiness and cowardice, a desire to stick it up to his brother that was greater than his desire to do his duty.

Highly? All the evidence except his own words point to him being aware of the scheme, and characters lie.

You fall into a victimhood complex here, Renly is isn't "never lambasted for acting amorally", in fact he's probably more criticized/vilified than Stannis is in that aspect, but oh well. Stannis is criticized because he crowned himself after Renly for one, Renly didn't know he would have to deal with Stannis when he crowned himself (he even expected Stannis to be an ally, as he tells Catelyn) while Stannis clearly knew he would have to go through Renly to take the Throne. Renly also had more support than Stannis, and therefore a better shot at defeating the Lannister forces, without mentioning that his claim derived from a break in the feudal contract by Joffrey/Cersei rather than in something seen as a ridiculous self-serving rumour.

As far as Renly is concerned, he's usurping Joffrey, not Stannis, and with a very valid reason.

I don't think there's anything wrong with him leaving the Stormlands, it's the only thing he could have done at this point, so I think we agree here.

That's in the show only.

Renly doesn't discover the twincest until he is already crowned, and a bit after he's attacked by Stannis. Whether Renly fled before Robert died or not is unknown, but it seems he was the very last person to see Robert alive, considering he heads towards to tower where Robert lay dying after Eddard refused his proposal, and Robert died shortly after having seen Eddard.

It's not demonization of the character, it's recognizing him for the flawed, layered character he is instead of whitewashing his every action and praising him at every occasion.

Stannis is a man that wants to be a hero, he wants to be good, he wants to be dutiful, and just, he wants to be the Messiah and the Hero King, and strives towards becoming all of that, but his own shortcomings (pettiness, jealousy, egocentrism, hypocrisy) lead him to fail greatly at doing just that. He's a tragic character more akin to Jaime, Theon, and Tyrion (and eventually Dany I believe) than a stereotypically virtuous hero like Eddard, Jon, or his own right hand man, Davos.

Stannis is a character with a lot of flaws and an uncharismatic personality, although I wouldn't necessarily see him as being in the same class as Jaime or Theon - kinslaying aside, he hasn't murdered any children that I'm aware of and he does seems to have some sense of justice. I give him marks for punishing rapists, being against corruption and promoting Davos on merit, for example.

However, Robert's children being twincest bastards is actually true and does give Stannis a defensible legal claim to the throne, even if it is not easily provable. I'm really struggling with the idea that Renly has any kind of reasonable argument as to why he should be king other than naked ambition and self interest.

I also think you may be failing to follow your own advice in believing everything that Renly says. I've read some interesting analysis recently that was sceptical of Renly not knowing about the incest - it's just in his interest to fain ignorance because Joffrey being a bastard strengthens Stannis' claim. Renly spent a lot of time at court and he certainly wasn't stupid. One interpretation of his promotion of Margaery as a 'new Lyanna' might be that he expected the position of queen to shortly become vacant.

[John Doe]

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Actually yes, I have had Stannis fans on this forum argue just that. That no other Stormlord would have been capable of holding Storm's End like Stannis did.

I'm only going by the words of Stannis and the author. What Stannis did was good, but not extraordinary and certainly not something that could not have had the same result with or without Stannis.

Not anyone, just anyone competent.

Storm's End is one of the strongest castles in Westeros. Stannis himself claims that Penrose could do the same. I'm sorry but I'm going to take the opinion of the author and Stannis himself on this one.

When did the author and Stannis state anything about `how well supplied Storm's End was?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

When did the author and Stannis state anything about `how well supplied Storm's End was?

Stannis, having no idea how well supplied Storm's End was, quite clearly states that

Estermont will favor settling down to starve them out, as Tyrell and Redwyne once tried with me. That might take a year, but old mules are patient.

There is no addendum from Stannis about supplies, he just makes it clear that a year is how long it should take. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

11 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I'm really struggling with the idea that Renly has any kind of reasonable argument as to why he should be king other than naked ambition and self interest.

I agree, there was clearly some self interest in Renly doing proclaiming he was King (which was similar to how the Rebels crowned Robert).  There was an element of some kind of self preservation but also ambition and opportunism from him and the Tyrells. The timing was just too good for them.

11 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I also think you may be failing to follow your own advice in believing everything that Renly says. I've read some interesting analysis recently that was sceptical of Renly not knowing about the incest - it's just in his interest to fain ignorance because Joffrey being a bastard strengthens Stannis' claim.

It also strengthens his own claim. He was already claiming to be usurping his brothers children and Stannis. The Lords who were supporting him were not going to change their minds if he was only usurping Stannis. If anything trying to usurp Robert's sons likely lost him support (like the Swanns).

Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella being bastards would be fantastic news for Renly. He seems pretty happy with this development when he is talking to Cat about it.

[Sullen]

9 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Stannis is a character with a lot of flaws and an uncharismatic personality, although I wouldn't necessarily see him as being in the same class as Jaime or Theon - kinslaying aside, he hasn't murdered any children that I'm aware of and he does seems to have some sense of justice. I give him marks for punishing rapists, being against corruption and promoting Davos on merit, for example.

He planned on murdering Edric.

Jaime and Theon have punished rapists as well.

Joffrey promoted on merit as well, in fact, until Stannis turns entirely to Davos for support, he's probably the King the most guilty of nepotism in the series.

11 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

However, Robert's children being twincest bastards is actually true and does give Stannis a defensible legal claim to the throne, even if it is not easily provable. I'm really struggling with the idea that Renly has any kind of reasonable argument as to why he should be king other than naked ambition and self interest.

His life is endangered after Cersei and Joffrey had Eddard executed.

Keep in mind Renly's point of view here, he thinks Eddard simply tried to take control of the regency, as he was supposed to do, he doesn't know Eddard tried to dethrone Joffrey. From where he's standing, the Lannisters are killing as many of the people in power as possible to consolidate the maximum amount of power. Houses Tully and Stark already fell victim to their schemes, it's no stretch to think that he was next. He rebels, and as long as you rebel against tyranny, you'd be a fool not to crown yourself as well. (Not to mention that the crown was probably one of the conditions to get Tyrell on his side)

It's not ambition or self-interest that pushed Renly's hand in my opinion, it's self-preservation, which is appropriately enough completely in line with his other two plots during AGoT. (Replace Cersei by Marge, and secure Eddard's regency)

17 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I also think you may be failing to follow your own advice in believing everything that Renly says. I've read some interesting analysis recently that was sceptical of Renly not knowing about the incest - it's just in his interest to fain ignorance because Joffrey being a bastard strengthens Stannis' claim. Renly spent a lot of time at court and he certainly wasn't stupid. One interpretation of his promotion of Margaery as a 'new Lyanna' might be that he expected the position of queen to shortly become vacant.

Not to be condescending, but theories that propose that Renly knew about the incest are without a fault always based in Stannis apologia. (Or come from people who can't differentiate the books with the show)

Renly was smart, yes, but the bastardy of the children was not evident, unlike what the show would have us believe (where everyone and their mums are aware of it) it took both Eddard, Jon, and Stannis a considerable amount of time before figuring it by themselves. Besides, had Renly known about the incest, he would have certainly used it to his advantage in his first plan to marry Margery to Robert, it would have given him the perfect opportunity to do so. Renly was bold and was well-liked by Robert, he would not have the same reticence to bring it up to him, especially if he had proof.

[Ruhail]

14 minutes ago, Sullen said:

He planned on murdering Edric.

Jaime and Theon have punished rapists as well.

Joffrey promoted on merit as well, in fact, until Stannis turns entirely to Davos for support, he's probably the King the most guilty of nepotism in the series.

His life is endangered after Cersei and Joffrey had Eddard executed.

Keep in mind Renly's point of view here, he thinks Eddard simply tried to take control of the regency, as he was supposed to do, he doesn't know Eddard tried to dethrone Joffrey. From where he's standing, the Lannisters are killing as many of the people in power as possible to consolidate the maximum amount of power. Houses Tully and Stark already fell victim to their schemes, it's no stretch to think that he was next. He rebels, and as long as you rebel against tyranny, you'd be a fool not to crown yourself as well. (Not to mention that the crown was probably one of the conditions to get Tyrell on his side)

It's not ambition or self-interest that pushed Renly's hand in my opinion, it's self-preservation, which is appropriately enough completely in line with his other two plots during AGoT. (Replace Cersei by Marge, and secure Eddard's regency)

Not to be condescending, but theories that propose that Renly knew about the incest are without a fault always based in Stannis apologia. (Or come from people who can't differentiate the books with the show)

Renly was smart, yes, but the bastardy of the children was not evident, unlike what the show would have us believe (where everyone and their mums are aware of it) it took both Eddard, Jon, and Stannis a considerable amount of time before figuring it by themselves. Besides, had Renly known about the incest, he would have certainly used it to his advantage in his first plan to marry Margery to Robert, it would have given him the perfect opportunity to do so. Renly was bold and was well-liked by Robert, he would not have the same reticence to bring it up to him, especially if he had proof.

 "Despite it all Stannis is a righteous man." sorry Grrm's words 

[Sullen]

Just now, Ruhail said:

 "Despite it all Stannis is a righteous man." sorry Grrm's words 

"Despite it all"

If one strives to do good as much as possible, would one not be righteous even despite his repeated moral failings?

I wouldn't be surprised if GRRM held the same opinion of Jaime, or of Tyrion, in fact, or Theon as well, and certainly of Dany.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

3 minutes ago, Ruhail said:

 "Despite it all Stannis is a righteous man." sorry Grrm's words 

Yes, he consistently shows righteous indignation. That does not make him a good person (or a bad person) nor does it make him right (or wrong). It is a character trait that means that he can justify anything he does.

[Wall Flower]

5 minutes ago, Sullen said:

He planned on murdering Edric.

Jaime and Theon have punished rapists as well.

Joffrey promoted on merit as well, in fact, until Stannis turns entirely to Davos for support, he's probably the King the most guilty of nepotism in the series.

His life is endangered after Cersei and Joffrey had Eddard executed.

Keep in mind Renly's point of view here, he thinks Eddard simply tried to take control of the regency, as he was supposed to do, he doesn't know Eddard tried to dethrone Joffrey. From where he's standing, the Lannisters are killing as many of the people in power as possible to consolidate the maximum amount of power. Houses Tully and Stark already fell victim to their schemes, it's no stretch to think that he was next. He rebels, and as long as you rebel against tyranny, you'd be a fool not to crown yourself as well. (Not to mention that the crown was probably one of the conditions to get Tyrell on his side)

It's not ambition or self-interest that pushed Renly's hand in my opinion, it's self-preservation, which is appropriately enough completely in line with his other two plots during AGoT. (Replace Cersei by Marge, and secure Eddard's regency)

Not to be condescending, but theories that propose that Renly knew about the incest are without a fault always based in Stannis apologia. (Or come from people who can't differentiate the books with the show)

Renly was smart, yes, but the bastardy of the children was not evident, unlike what the show would have us believe (where everyone and their mums are aware of it) it took both Eddard, Jon, and Stannis a considerable amount of time before figuring it by themselves. Besides, had Renly known about the incest, he would have certainly used it to his advantage in his first plan to marry Margery to Robert, it would have given him the perfect opportunity to do so. Renly was bold and was well-liked by Robert, he would not have the same reticence to bring it up to him, especially if he had proof.

I take your point about Edric. Jaime punishing rapists would be a lot more impressive if he didn't spend most of the time looking the other way at his own father's use of rape as tactic of war and punishment (it took him a long time to come clean to Tyrion with the truth about Tysha). Didn't Theon rape that girl at Winterfell? As for Joffrey promoting on merit, I'm assuming you are using the term 'merit' very loosely. 

The analysis was from a couple of other websites that seem well-respected and book knowledgeable, not from Stannis apologists, per se. Renly suspecting the truth doesn't mean he had proof or was willing to put himself at risk to expose it. I'm far from an expert, as you kindly pointed out, but you do seem take what Renly says on face value while advising scepticism when it comes to the utterances of other characters.

[Sullen]

Just now, Wall Flower said:

I take your point about Edric. Jaime punishing rapists would be a lot more impressive if he didn't spend most of the time looking the other way at his own father's use of rape as tactic of war and punishment (it took him a long time to come clean to Tyrion with the truth about Tysha).

He doesn't have the balls to stand up to his father, yet punishes rapists at every occasion he gets.

Do we similarly take Stannis not standing up to Robert when the Targ children were killed, the same way Eddard did, as something that diminishes his stance towards justice?

3 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Didn't Theon rape that girl at Winterfell?

He sure as hell assaulted her by biting her and raining hits down on her, but I don't think the sexual part is the one she opposed.

In any case, characters are often guilty of moral myopia, this would be just one such example.

6 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

The analysis was from a couple of other websites that seem well-respected and book knowledgeable, not from Stannis apologists, per se.

You can be knowledgeable and yet still be incredibly biased. Well-respected doesn't mean much if the people respecting you are equally as biased as you are.

8 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Renly suspecting the truth doesn't mean he had proof or was willing to put himself at risk to expose it. 

He's already a noted enemy of Cersei/Joffrey, at this point, what does he have to lose?

8 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I'm far from an expert, as you kindly pointed out, but you do seem take what Renly says on face value while advising scepticism when it comes to the utterances of other characters.

Because in those scenarios, lying actually hampers him rather than helps his cause, he has no reason to lie, simply put, or what he says ends up being true, or, it's simply wrong for a different reason (mostly him overestimating himself).

The children's bastardy gives his claim more legitimacy, he would have denounced them if he really knew, be it before or after Robert's death. 

[John Doe]

9 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Stannis, having no idea how well supplied Storm's End was, quite clearly states that

Estermont will favor settling down to starve them out, as Tyrell and Redwyne once tried with me. That might take a year, but old mules are patient.

There is no addendum from Stannis about supplies, he just makes it clear that a year is how long it should take. 

Do you have a quote indicating that Stannis has no idea how well supplied Storm's End is? Why should his lords not tell him when it was quite clearly known in Renly's camp that it was "well supplied"?  Why should he think the most important castle of the Stormlands was only partially supplied when they were going to war (and had the time to prepare)?