The Stannis Plan and why he wrote the Pink Letter 2.0

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, divica said:

Are you saying he won t tell the clansmen that want to save ned's little girl that he is sending her to safety?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. The less people that know where she is going the better. She isn't safe at the wall either. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And don t you think that when ramsay doesn t find his bride and reek there he will torture the survivors to know where they are? And everybody talks under torture.

All the more reason for Stannis to have kept it a secret where he is sending her. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Thankfully there are some of mors men around winterfell to torture and point him in the right directon

We have no evidence this has happened. This is pure speculation on your part & you keep acting like it's fact. It's not. What is fact is that Stannis knows where fArya is going. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

What? I am sayin that line about reek is useless or makes jon question the veracity of the letter

But it doesn't make Jon question the veracity of the letter. According to you that line can only have 2 purposes 1. To make Jon question the veracity of the letter - which is silly because no matter who wrote it they wouldn't want that. Or 2. It's useless. 

We know it doesn't make Jon question the veracity nor would the writer write the line for that purpose so, according to you it's useless. 

If it's useless, it's useless regardless of who wrote the letter so what is your point?

2 hours ago, divica said:

because farya would tell him that reek was with stannis

fArya would tell who Reek is with Stannis??

Jon? As of Jon's reading the letter he hasn't seen fArya. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

that the letter claims stanniswas defeated therefore ramsay should know that reek was there

Um yeah. If it were true that Ramsay defeated Stannis then he would know reek was there so why would he ask Jon for him? 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Stannis was the one that wrote the letter he has zero reasons to write this line. It is either useless or makes jon question the veracity of the letter. Therefore stannis didn t write the letter

If it makes Jon question the veracity of the letter (it doesn't & we know that so I don't have the slightest idea why you keep saying this) it does so regardless of the writer. Again, it doesn't make him question it so why do you keep insisting this? 

If Stannis wrote the letter he knows he has Reek with him but Ramsay does not. Stannis also knows fArya is on her way to the wall, something he assumes Ramsay thinks also because Stannis doesn't know that Arya is fake & the most logical place for real Arya to go would be to the wall. If Stannis was correct that Ramsay knew or suspected fArya was going to the wall it comes to reason that Theon is going also. 

If Ramsay wrote the letter he has defeated Stannis & knows Theon was with him & would have absolutely no reason to ask for his Reek back if he already had him. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

already answered this 3 or 4 times. Stannis isn t convincing you (the reader) that the PL is written by ramsay. He would be convincing jon

& Your answer falls flat 3 or 4 times. What would Ramsay be convincing Jon of? Why, if Ramsay wrote the letter & knows Theon was with Stannis would he ask for him from Jon? Why would Ramsay think Theon would go to the wall at all? 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And jons know nothing about reek or ramsay obecession with him. What he might know if farya is there, and who wrote the letter thinks she is, is that reek was with stannis who the letter claims was defeated. How can the contents of the letter be true but be so wrong about reek? It would make jon think that there are lies in the letter

fArya IS NOT there when Jon reads the letter. We know that. Ramsay has no reason to believe she went there or would go there. Stannis does. The stuff about Ramsay interrogating a prisoner is possible but as of now we have no evidence to support that. 

If he did interrogate a prisoner then he also knows Reek was with Stannis. Or he has Reek back because he caught him when he defeated Stannis. So no reason to ask for him. 

I'm not saying the contents of the letter are true, you are. I'm saying they are false because they are a trickery being used by Stannis. If Ramsay wrote them they would be true. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

This goes against stannis goals! Stannis would want him to think the letter was as true as possible

So would Ramsay! 

2 hours ago, divica said:

when jon rode away he was going to live as jon snow

What? Jon never rode away. Was there some point in which he planned on not living as Jon Snow? 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Now he is riding south on NW business. He is riding as a member of the NW to deal with a lord that threatned to kill him

I'm not disagree with you here. I'm saying other people will. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

In order to desert the least a person has do is renounce the NW... Given that jon is acting as LC while riding south it doesn t make sense to say he is deserting. What stannis and everybody can acuse him of is interfering in the politcs of the 7 kingdoms. And I don t think we know exactly if this should lead to jon's death or some other kind of punishment

Again, not disagreeing but if you think others, on this forum & in the books won't , you haven't been paying attention. 

No we don't know it will lead to death but it has to lead to a punishment of some sort. It's one of their main rules. Don't interfere with matters of the realm. There would be punishment. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Another important thing to take into account is that we are talking about stannis who punishes any crime (look at davos). The idea he would manipulate an ally/friend to break his vows and then pardon him without punishment is kind of insane… IT goes against everything we know of stannis

No Stannis has offered to do exactly this several times. Absolve him of his NW vows, legitimize him, & make him Lord of WF. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And the fact you can t find a logical way for him to actualy ride alone to winterfell shows you also know it doesn t make sense

Well I assume he would ride there on a horse. That would be the most logical way. I suppose he could walk, too, if he wanted. 

Is there something that prevents a man from riding on a horse alone, that I'm unaware of? 

I assumed you knew this was how he would ride to WF. You haven't asked me previously for a logical way for him to ride to WF alone so it's hardly fair to say I couldn't find one. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Should be common knowledge. People know that jon is the new LC and that the old one died. After so much time at least the people in the north should know how the previous LC died

Sure, maybe. We don't know he knows though. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

First it is known that the NW is full of criminals and that usually criminals don t have honnor. For some reason there aren t women in the NW

There is a far jump from believing criminals have no honor to that they will behave in a manner that is conducive to Ramsay's goals. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And ramsay probably thinks all people he asked for are with the NW so they can meet his demands if they want

How or why would he think this if he had actually defeated Stannis & either recaptured Reek or interrogated the prisoners & learned Stannis had Reek?

2 hours ago, divica said:

Second, it is obvious criminals don t want to fight a losing war and die (like sellswords). So their only choice is to run away from CB and weaken the NW against ramsay's attack

Lol! Oh for shits sake! It's obvious criminals don't want to fight a losing war?? No one wants to fight a losing war. Criminals are no less courageous & proud than law abiding citizens. This is absurd. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

As I said above. Using those expressions has zero effect in convincing jon that ramsay wrote the PL because jon doesn t know how ramsay talks nor his relation with reek

Jon has received another letter from Ramsay so it actually would need to be similar in verbage. 

And how is it that Ramsay supposedly knows all about the watch & the criminals with no honor, & that they will flee & weaken the watch but Jon doesn't know of Ramsay's reputation? Of course he does. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

The only people that might read those words and be convinced that stannis is impersonating ramsay are the readers

Who are the audience of the books no? George leaves clues throughout the books of things that aren't showing the characters anything, only us. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And ramsay refers to farya as his bride and theon as his reek… Are you really saying that using the word want before these words proves anything

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying GRRM leaves subtle hints to things. It is rather ironic & coincidental that we hear Theon say these things to Stannis & now there is a letter to Jon, saying the same thing, whose authorship is in question. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Again. It can t be desertion if he is riding south on NW business and keeps identifying himself as a NW member. Lots of NW brothers ride south

And again. You are preaching to the choir but there will be people who don't see it that way. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

At most people can think he is interfering with the wars of the 7 kingdoms. And the mutinners think he is dooming the NW by siding against ramsay in adition to this

The mutineers may think any number of things. We aren't told what they kill him for but it could be they kill him because they think he is deserting. Or because they believe he is interfering in matters of the realm. I would highly doubt the only motive is that Jon is going against Ramsay. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

Actually by reading the PL outloud jon make it pretty clear that he is riding south because of ramsay threatning the NW. Dozens of people heard him and will spred it to hundreds/thousands. I don t think this is arguable. People might not agree with his motivations, but he has proof that his action are for the NW.

Ok. Do this for me ok? Go start a thread about whether or not Jon deserted or attempted to desert when he announced his intention to march on WF & see how many people agree with you. 

People are going to argue it. It isn't clear cut. I agree with you but others will not, in the forum & in the books. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

On the other hand, wether he is interfering with the wars of the 7 kingdoms or not depends on each person… The problem is that even if stannis is victorious he has no power to enforce his judgement on jon. Don t Forget that by that time he will have less than 300 Southern soldiers. If jon lives or dies doesn t depend on stannis but on the northern lords that have all the power. IT would be a dick move to manipulate jon to break his vows (the ones about not interfering) when he doesn t have the power to forgive him… And again not stannis style

No Stannis cannot force his judgement on Jon. He is banking on the fact that the members of the NW will accuse him of desertion & leave him with the choice of death or WF. Or he is hoping once Jon gets to WF he decides to take up his offer out of gratitude for Stannis getting it back from the Bolton's. 

Do you really think the northern Lord's won't stand behind Jon? Power lies where people think it lies & there is not a chance the northern Lord's are not going to recognize Stannis's authority if he is placing a son of Ned in WF. 

This is exactly Stannis's style. Not only has he offered to do this for Jon half a hundred times but he also desperately needs it. He has used trickery repeatedly to reach his goals. Burning Mance, the fake sword, shadow babies - this is exactly the type of thing Stannis would do. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

 you honestly imagine jon infiltrating winterfell and acting behind the scenes orchestrating a revolt? wether he might do it or not it certainly doesn t look like his style… And he is LC of the NW... He can t act as spy indefinetly… his job is to lead the NW

This wasn't my option it was yours. Sure he may be able to succeed or he may die trying but either way he wasn't letting that letter go unanswered. There is no reason he would have to spy indefinitely. 

I'm not sure how you became the supreme knowledge on the characters "styles" but Jon's "style" is to do whatever it takes. He is angry & a little irrational. He says he would march alone & unless you believe him to be a liar then you have to believe him. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And any of your other options simply don t provide jon enough men to do anything

Bs. Theon took WF with less men. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

He just told all the people in the shieldhall that he is going south because ramsay threatned the NW. A side effect of his actions is interfering with the matters of the realm, but no one can acuse him of acting because he wanted to affect the realm

Sure they can't. You make that thread & see who accuses him of what. He has been accused several times with less evidence. 

2 hours ago, divica said:

And given your characterization of stannis. Do you think he will manipulate an ally/friend into breaking his vows for false reasons? That he will do it when he knows he can t give him a pardon (he can t do it without the support of the Northern lords)? That he won t demand some kind of punishment regardless

Yes. 100% Stannis would do this. He offered to do it over & over without the support of anyone & he knows he would have the support of the northern Lord's in this. No, he would not demand a punishment for something he tricked Jon into doing. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, divica said:

I think this must be said.

If stannis wrote the PL just to bring jon to winterfell wouldn t it be much better to write something like this

"I spoke with the northern lords and they will only accept a stark as warden of the north. As Ned's last remaining son they will accept you if you renounce your NW vows. You know who the true enemy is and that we need the north United to defeat him. 

Come to winterfell and become jon stark. Bring all the people in the PL"

He would know that the northern lords actually acepted jon, his familly would come to winterfel, would pressure jon to break his vows for the right reasons and for necessity...

@three-eyed monkey, @Lyanna<3Rhaegar why write the PL instead of something similar to this?

Because Jon would refuse as he has done over & over when given this same argument. 

[The Map Guy]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

Problem-reaction-solution.

 

Stannis is setting a trap of sorts for Jon using an old political strategy. Create a problem, wait for a reaction, and then step forward with the solution.

The letter created the problem. Stannis hoped and predicted Jon would react by breaking his vows and riding to Winterfell. If Jon had managed to do that he would have found Stannis in possession of the castle. Ramsay would be dead and the assumption would be that he wrote the letter sometime after he had been deceived by Stannis’ false message of a Bolton victory but before he died. And who could argue otherwise? At Castle Black ravens would have flown, with Bowen Marsh, still keen to appease King’s Landing, calling for Jon’s head as an oath breaker, leaving Stannis with a by-now familiar decision, the same one he faced with Mance and possibly Theon too, does he burn the man or do what he needs to do to keep him alive? With Jon’s vows already broken and death as the alternative, Stannis would hope that Jon finally sees sense and accept the king’s offer in return for a pardon, fulfilling Stannis simple problem-reaction-solution strategy.

Is this something Stannis would do? It's really below him.

Roose/Vargo did something similar at Harrenhal with Amory ... but Roose/Vargo are considered dishonorable rats.

Stannis' character arc doesn't involve him being a rat. In this theory, he would take Winterfell in a dishonorable way, and would lure Jon away from his NW vows in a dishonorable way.

And besides, Stannis would have to hope that Jon would not get executed for his oathbreaking trying to leaving Castle Black.

Like divica said, Stannis can just ask Jon again nicely if he wants it. (We know Jon dun want it)

If Stannis took Winterfell and he establishes "Arya Stark" as the future heir, he wouldn't need Jon Snow the bastard. I think that is a resolution that most Northerners would accept until a better resolution arrives ... like a Rickon Stark and Davos.

[redriver]

2 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Stannis' character arc doesn't involve him being a rat. In this theory, he would take Winterfell in a dishonorable way, and would lure Jon away from his NW vows in a dishonorable way.

Stannis is not really about about honour, he's about duty and ends justifying means. He participated in dark sorcery to kill his rival brother, burned people alive for fair winds and better weather and pretended to have burned Mance. He's not above sending a dodgy letter if he feels that's what it takes. In fact he chides Jon about his honour and asks what good it did Ned.

 

2 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

If Stannis took Winterfell and he establishes "Arya Stark" as the future heir, he wouldn't need Jon Snow the bastard. I think that is a resolution that most Northerners would accept until a better resolution arrives ... like a Rickon Stark and Davos.

I doubt it.The Lords knew Arya was feigned. They only tolerated it to appease the Boltons. She is not "the Ned's little girl".

[three-eyed monkey]

9 hours ago, Nevets said:

1.  Jon.  Jon is quite useful to Stannis right where he is; as LC of the NIghts Watch.  He is carrying out policies Stnanis supports, such as allowing wilidlings across the Wall, and preparing to fight the Others, which many NW men are opposed to.  He is also protecting Stannis's family.

We know form the text Stannis would prefer Jon to be his Lord of Winterfell. There's no dispute about that.

9 hours ago, Nevets said:

Not to mention that Jon the Deserter may be of limited use to Stannis.  If the Northerners are angry at Jon for deserting,, he is of no use at all.  And if Jon finds out he has been fooled, watch out.  Jon is the type who makes a good friend, and a bad enemy.

Stannis problem with the northerners is that they might want to crown him King-of-the-North, not that they will be angry he deserted.

Yes, from Stannis point of view it is vital Jon never finds out the truth. That's why I doubt Theon was involved directly, and it's why Tybald will loose his tongue if not his head.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

If Stannis can defeat Ramsay, he will probably be able to obtain the Northerners' homage.  The Manderlys may well bend the knee just to avoid retaliation for the supposed death of Davos.  And they are the important ones, as they have the only decent forces outside of Stannis and the Boltons.

The north has no love for Stannis, nor any king in King's Landing for that matter as they recently declared their independence. Stannis thinks Lord Wyman killed Davos, and he had an insulting letter from Wyman prior to sending Davos to treat, so the allegiance of White Harbor and others would go a lot better if Stannis had Jon on his side as his Lord of Winterfell.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

FArya.  Ramsay needs Arya as a hostage to control the Northerners.  With her gone, he is in trouble.  He needs her back, and there are only two places she will reasonably go, Stannis's camp and the Wall.  He probably knows she made it to Stannis's camp.  Finding out that she went to the Wall shouldn't be too difficult. 

Again, assuming Ramsay wins the battle of ice, which I seriously doubt he will.

I'm glad you agree that Ramsay needs Arya for political reasons. So he needs the charade with Jeyne to continue. Why then is he asking one of the only people left alive that knows it is not Arya for her back, when it is not her?

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

They should be able to make decent time.  Jeyne is not frail and seriously injured.  She has frostbite, and is traumatized, but otherwise reasonably healthy, and likely a decent rider.

She has broken ribs from the fall as well as the frostbite and trauma. I'm told that riding with broken ribs is tough, especially at a canter or gallop.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

Ramsay is probably hoping that Jon will be willing to give her back, since she isn't really his sister, so has no reason to protect her.  And if Stannis has really lost, it would be in Jon's interest to keep his mouth shut about her identity.  If he does say she is fake, the Boltons can brand him a liar trying to cause trouble for the Boltons, and trying to keep his sister from Ramsay. 

Jon would be very credible considering he would have Jeyne to confirm what he is saying. The Bolton's aren't that dumb.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

Stannis's family.  Why would the letter even mention Stannis's family if Stannis wrote it.  All that does is make it likely that they will be forced to go to Essos, which is not in Stannis's interest.  Adding them is unnecessary and counter-productive.

Even if they flee to Essos the situation is not irretrievable. If Stannis can't win the north to his cause, which looks unlikely without Jon, then it's game over. You have to weigh it up. And of course Stannis is hoping that Mel will pick up on the first lines of the letter.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

By the way, I do not believe that there are secret entrances to Winterfell.  If there were, they would have been used by now.  Theon would have used it to gain access when he took it, instead of his risky gambit of climbing the walls.  And Ser Rodrick would certainly have used it to remove Theon, instead of sitting outside in a siege.

We agree on this. Even if there are secret entrances, if Theon did not know about them then I doubt Jon would know.

 

 

[three-eyed monkey]

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jon didn’t secretly save anyone, Stannis and/or Mel did. And once Jon leaned “Rattleshirt” was really Mance, there wasn’t much he could do w/o risking completely alienating Stannis; something we, readers, know is against the NW best interest at the mo. 

Yes, I know that and Jon knows that. The accusation is unjust and I think it is made by someone who knows Jon has a strong sense of justice.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

But even leaving all of that aside for argument’s sake, so what if it’s oathbreaking? Some oaths should be broken, and all I can say is good riddance.

Jon himself ponders... is this oathbreaking? (Paraphrasing). And the answer is, it doesn’t matter. What matters is doing the right thing, and not only Jon is, but Stannis knows he is. 

I totally agree. The value of oaths is a strong theme in the whole series. Oaths are words, and words are wind. What matters is doing the right thing. Jon is someone who will do the right thing. Stannis knows that, he's banking on it in fact.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I have no idea why you say that. Jon was very much responding as the LC of NW. That’s why he wants to protect his men, yeah? Also, in the PL Ramsay threatens not only several individuals but the Watch itself and its LC. So, yeah, Jon is very much responding as the man in charge. 

As the man in charge yes, but his motive is personal. The Watch do not get involved. If it is ok for the Watch to respond aggressively to the Lord of Winterfell's attempt to uphold the laws and bring criminals to justice, then Jon would not have to protect his men from forswearing his vows. Jon was going rogue.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I won’t dispute this. Not that I am sure it is; I think there’s a whole lotta grey there, and I believe this is a very deliberate choice Martin made. But the point for me, the core issue is not whether it is oathbreaking bur rather, aren’t there oaths and vows that should be broken (b/c they’re just plain bollocks?)?

We agree. It's a what you do, not what you say type thing. As I said, it's a strong theme throughout the series.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I am sure Ramsay knows Mance or at least knows of Mance. Also, since you brought it up, am I right in assuming you think Stannis is in on the Mance/Rattleshirt switcheroo? I do, btw. And I still think Ramsay wrote the letter.

I believe I posted a Stannis knew about the Mance/Rattleshirt switch thread years ago and there was a huge amount of opposition to it at the time from people who thought Mel went solo. The point of the thread at the time was to show that Stannis was very capable of subterfuge, because that was a big objection to this pink letter theory at the time.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sure, why not? Ramsay is nothing if not repetitive, and part of it is ?Martin being... well, Martin.

Ramsay never spoke those words to my knowledge so repetition does not explain it. The simple fact is they are Theon's words and they appear in the letter because someone more or less quoted him.

When it's confirmed people are going to facepalm over this one.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, this is my general feel for the situation w/ Mance and the SW. I do hope we’re wrong somehow, though... I do like Squirrel very much, and squirrel = CotF and Bran and Arya, so. Fingers crossed she makes it out alive, feisty lil SW that she is.  

Again we agree here. I admire squirrel's bravery and I hope she gets out but you know how GRRM rewards bravery and such.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I’ll take that as a compliment? Maybe?

Absolutely.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, Jon doesn’t refuse because of his vows. Jon refuses Stannis because of Wintefell itself, its heart tree, and the Old Gods. And we get the whole thought process on this, so there is really no doubt. 

I agree again. The quotes you provided show Jon's inner turmoil and as readers we know what is going on. I believe Stannis senses some of that, especially around Jon's reaction to Winterfell going to a Karstark, but the main objection from Stannis point of view is what Jon tells him, several times. His sword is sworn to the Watch.

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, exactly! And that’s Stannis’s plan working just as he intended. When he has his convo w/ Massey, he already has a plan. And Ramsay buys it hook, line and sinker and writes the PL.

So Ramsay stays in Winterfell and waits for word from Stannis camp or Ramsay goes to Stannis camp as Theon, who you think can predict Ramsay word-for-word, believes he will?

[three-eyed monkey]

8 hours ago, divica said:

And you would be wrong. First farya's group all have horses. Then they are riding to get to the Wall as fast as possible.

Jon and the wildlings would probably need to march (not everyone woudl be mounted) and travel with a food storage. They will take much more time than farya's group.

That is why I said that jon would take a long time reaching winterfell.

But you also said Stannis would not know about Tormund's army, and I agree, so there is no reason for Stannis to think it will take Jon a month. Jon should be able to make the journey faster that whatever time you want to say it will take Jeyne because she is riding with broken ribs and frostbite.

8 hours ago, divica said:

How can it be unlikely that stannis is only defeated after several days of battle?

Because Stannis is losing men hand over fist from cold and starvation. Nor has he fortified the crofter's village as you claim. It's going to be a short battle.

9 hours ago, divica said:

That is why something realy weird must have happened at theon's trial to convince the people around stannis that he is going to the Wall...

I don't need something weird to happen at Theon's trial to explain this. Theon told Stannis that Ramsay would come for him because he wants his Reek and he wants his bride. When Stannis was writing a letter that is supposed to be from Ramsay he used what Theon told him to lend it authenticity, as that is what Ramsay really wants. You claim that it would not lend authenticity, but at the same time you are claiming it is authentically from Ramsay?

9 hours ago, divica said:

No. There is truth in there.

I agree, because we know that Mance is indeed in Winterfell. We don't know if it is in a cage or in the crypts but we know he is there and we know this part catches Jon's attention and means he can't disregard the letter as lies.

[three-eyed monkey]

8 hours ago, divica said:

I think this must be said.

If stannis wrote the PL just to bring jon to winterfell wouldn t it be much better to write something like this

"I spoke with the northern lords and they will only accept a stark as warden of the north. As Ned's last remaining son they will accept you if you renounce your NW vows. You know who the true enemy is and that we need the north United to defeat him. 

Come to winterfell and become jon stark. Bring all the people in the PL" 

He would know that the northern lords actually acepted jon, his familly would come to winterfel, would pressure jon to break his vows for the right reasons and for necessity...

@three-eyed monkey, @Lyanna<3Rhaegar why write the PL instead of something similar to this?

He tried the straight approach several times and Proudwing thought him that rather than persist with something that does not work it is better to try a different hawk. To be honest, this is a great example of what I love about GRRM's storytelling.

[three-eyed monkey]

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Is this something Stannis would do? It's really below him.

Roose/Vargo did something similar at Harrenhal with Amory ... but Roose/Vargo are considered dishonorable rats.

Stannis' character arc doesn't involve him being a rat. In this theory, he would take Winterfell in a dishonorable way, and would lure Jon away from his NW vows in a dishonorable way.

Stannis looked disgusted. "Your father was a stubborn man as well. Honor, he called it. Well, honor has its costs, as Lord Eddard learned to his sorrow.

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

If Stannis took Winterfell and he establishes "Arya Stark" as the future heir, he wouldn't need Jon Snow the bastard. I think that is a resolution that most Northerners would accept until a better resolution arrives ... like a Rickon Stark and Davos.

Jon is a far better choice than Arya, from Stannis' point of view.

To begin with Stannis is not exactly a feminist. In his eyes Arya's just a little girl who would come with a question of regency, which would really put Stannis needing a loyal regent the North would follow, so he'd simply be kicking the can down the road in many respects. Stannis tells Jon he will rescue his sister and find her a better match than Ramsay, so Stannis knows she has value in that typically feudal sense, but never does he suggest giving Winterfell to Arya.

Stannis believes the north would rally to the son of Eddard Stark and he thinks Bran and Rickon are dead. He has weighed Jon in his time at the Wall and considers him competent, trustworthy and loyal. Jon has the respect of many wildlings, who Stannis plans on settling on the Gift. And anyone, including Stannis, can see that Jon, who has assisted Stannis a lot, wants Stannis to succeed in getting the Bolton's out of Winterfell.

Put yourself in Stannis' shoes. Which one would be your first choice to hold the North in your name? It's worth a gamble to get Jon, and he can always fall back on Arya if Jon does not respond.

 

[kissdbyfire]

5 hours ago, redriver said:

Stannis is not really about about honour, he's about duty and ends justifying means.

Yes and no. One thing we do know for sure is that he is truly righteous, as per Martin. 

5 hours ago, redriver said:

He participated in dark sorcery to kill his rival brother,

Did he? I mean, he did “participate”, obviously. But how much did he know of what was going to happen beforehand? 

ASoS, Davos IV

“Maester Cressen was your faithful servant. She slew him, as she killed Ser Cortnay Penrose and your brother Renly.”
“Now you sound a fool,” the king complained. “She saw Renly’s end in the flames, yes, but she had no more part in it than I did. The priestess was with me. Your Devan would tell you so. Ask him, if you doubt me. She would have spared Renly if she could. It was Melisandre who urged me to meet with him, and give him one last chance to amend his treason. And it was Melisandre who told me to send for you when Ser Axell wished to give you to R’hllor.” He smiled thinly. “Does that surprise you?”

Note that Stannis doesn’t say anything about Cressen, but not only denies responsibility in Renly’s death, but tells Davos to ask Devan if he doesn’t believe. And given Stannis’s character, I think if he had participated knowingly he wouldn’t have denied it. He would have justified it, “had to be done” or “he was a traitor” or whatever. I think there’s a good chance Mel used his seed/life force/whatever to create the shadowbaby but, as far as Stannis knows, they were just having sex. Mel did what she does best: manipulate others into believing her powers and her visions. She tells Stannis she knows Renly will die, and proceeds to use sex w/ him to kill Renly, thus “proving” that her vision was accurate. It’s not unlike the leeches and the three kings thing, but here it’s the other way about... she foresees the three deaths, and uses the leeches and Edric’s “king’s blood” to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes making them believe it was her little ritual that killed Joffrey, Robb, and Balon. 

 

5 hours ago, redriver said:

burned people alive for fair winds and better weather

Nope. Alester Florent was executed for treason. 

ASoS, Davos IV

 

“Rise, Ser Davos,” Stannis commanded. “I have missed you, ser. I have need of good counsel, and you never gave me less. So tell me true—what is the penalty for treason?”
The word hung in the air. A frightful word, thought Davos. Was he being asked to condemn his cellmate? Or himself, perchance? Kings know the penalty for treason better than any man. “Treason?” he finally managed, weakly.
“What else would you call it, to deny your king and seek to steal his rightful throne. I ask you again—what is the penalty for treason under the law?”

Davos had no choice but to answer. “Death,” he said. “The penalty is death, Your Grace.”

<snip>

“Sire, Lord Florent meant no treason.”
“Do smugglers have another name for it? I made him Hand, and he would have sold my rights for a bowl of pease porridge. He would even have given them Shireen. Mine only child, he would have wed to a bastard born of incest.” The king’s voice was thick with anger.”

So, yes, Mel uses Alester’s execution to “conjure up the wind”, but she only gets to do that because he’d been guilty of treason and was going to be executed anyway. 

ADwD, Davos I

“The Hand who went before me. Melisandre had given Alester Florent to her god on Dragonstone, to conjure up the wind that bore them north.”

 

5 hours ago, redriver said:

and pretended to have burned Mance. He's not above sending a dodgy letter if he feels that's what it takes. In fact he chides Jon about his honour and asks what good it did Ned.

I don’t think Stannis is incapable of subterfuge, but I really don’t see how he could have thought the PL would have the effect he, in theory, desired. 

5 hours ago, redriver said:

I doubt it.The Lords knew Arya was feigned. They only tolerated it to appease the Boltons. She is not "the Ned's little girl".

I agree the northerners inside Winterfell very likely know the girl Ramsay married is not Arya Stark. However, I’m not so sure the ones w/ Stannis do as well. At any rate, even they do, I think a big, big part for all of them at this point is getting rid of the Boltons. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

“Maester Cressen was your faithful servant. She slew him, as she killed Ser Cortnay Penrose and your brother Renly.”
“Now you sound a fool,” the king complained. “She saw Renly’s end in the flames, yes, but she had no more part in it than I did. The priestess was with me. Your Devan would tell you so. Ask him, if you doubt me. She would have spared Renly if she could.

I'm always conflicted about what Stan knew about this because like you said I would believe if he knowingly participated he would say "he is a traitor" or something along those lines but one of things that makes me question this is that last line above "She would have spared Renly if she could." Doesn't that imply she couldn't spare Renly & that she did indeed kill him? 

Also, I think, he surely knows that Mel is using some sort of magic to get to Cortnay Penrose right? I mean he sends Davos to smuggle her in he doesn't think she is going to infiltrate the castle & kill him in a sword fight so he must have some idea of what she is up to. 

I don't know, again, I'm conflicted because what we know of Stannis says he would admit it but this very much reads like he knows but doesn't really want to know, if that makes sense?

14 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

So, yes, Mel uses Alester’s execution to “conjure up the wind”, but she only gets to do that because he’d been guilty of treason and was going to be executed anyway. 

I agree & it's kind of another example of Stan playing "both sides of the fence" if you will. He doesn't really believe in Mel's Red God but he does know Mel has some power & is willing to let her obtain that power when it aligns with his rules also. Sometimes even when it doesn't I guess. He didn't burn Edric, nor was he convinced to burn Edric I don't think but he was talking himself into it, or trying to. 

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

One thing we do know for sure is that he is truly righteous, as per Martin. 

Just to share the quote you are referring to:

Quote

And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

This is a very narrow sense of his being righteous, namely that his willingness to fight the Others makes him righteous. "Truly righteous" implies to me someone who is absolutely upstanding and moral, whereas I suspect George's intention -- especially when you consider "in spite of everything" in that same quote -- is  more like, "at least he has some righteous aim in his seeking the throne, to try and save the world, but he's a flawed guy who's making some bad choices to try and get there."

[three-eyed monkey]

5 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm always conflicted about what Stan knew about this because like you said I would believe if he knowingly participated he would say "he is a traitor" or something along those lines but one of things that makes me question this is that last line above "She would have spared Renly if she could." Doesn't that imply she couldn't spare Renly & that she did indeed kill him? 

Also, I think, he surely knows that Mel is using some sort of magic to get to Cortnay Penrose right? I mean he sends Davos to smuggle her in he doesn't think she is going to infiltrate the castle & kill him in a sword fight so he must have some idea of what she is up to. 

I don't know, again, I'm conflicted because what we know of Stannis says he would admit it but this very much reads like he knows but doesn't really want to know, if that makes sense?

You're right here. This is Stannis versus his shadow. Deep down Stannis will do anything to win the throne, and the shadow facilitates that while Stannis' hands remain clean, so to speak. There is an element of denial involved for sure, he doesn't want his image tarnished by such a thing, but he needs something to win Renly's host and Storm's End.

10 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree & it's kind of another example of Stan playing "both sides of the fence" if you will. He doesn't really believe in Mel's Red God but he does know Mel has some power & is willing to let her obtain that power when it aligns with his rules also. Sometimes even when it doesn't I guess. He didn't burn Edric, nor was he convinced to burn Edric I don't think but he was talking himself into it, or trying to. 

I agree again. He's playing both sides when it comes to Mel's magic. He doesn't believe in gods, including the Red God, but he's happy to appease Mel because he knows she has some power, even if he is skeptical of some of it himself, such as Lightbringer or the leeches.

Stannis rationalized burning Edric when he looked like he had few other options, but he jumped at the out Davos presented him.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 minute ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis rationalized burning Edric when he looked like he had few other options, but he jumped at the out Davos presented him.

Absolutely. Another example of Stannis being willing to do what he has to do but also not wanting to do malicious things. Given another option he took it. When he thought it was the only one though,.. 

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm always conflicted about what Stan knew about this because like you said I would believe if he knowingly participated he would say "he is a traitor" or something along those lines but one of things that makes me question this is that last line above "She would have spared Renly if she could." Doesn't that imply she couldn't spare Renly & that she did indeed kill him? 

Not necessarily IMO. I think it’s more manipulation, Mel style. For instance, she tells Stannis something along the lines of, “your brother is doomed, I have seen it in the flames. I would spare him, if I could”. 

14 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also, I think, he surely knows that Mel is using some sort of magic to get to Cortnay Penrose right? I mean he sends Davos to smuggle her in he doesn't think she is going to infiltrate the castle & kill him in a sword fight so he must have some idea of what she is up to. 

Definitely. But does he know the details? I think the killing of Penrose in the same way, via shadowbaby, supports the idea that Stannis doesn’t really know exactly how Renly was killed. Think about it... Mel tells him Renly is as good as dead. They have sex, meaning neither he nor she are anywhere near Renly’s camp, and Renly dies. Later, Mel tells Stannis she needs to be “near” SE to deal w/ Penrose, Stannis has Davos take her there. Penrose dies, and he (Stannis) isn’t anywhere near Mel and Davos. 

14 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know, again, I'm conflicted because what we know of Stannis says he would admit it but this very much reads like he knows but doesn't really want to know, if that makes sense?

It does make sense. You’re saying he’s in denial about it, right? Could be. Could also be a combination of things, like not knowing exactly how any of Mel’s spells work and denial.

14 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree & it's kind of another example of Stan playing "both sides of the fence" if you will. He doesn't really believe in Mel's Red God but he does know Mel has some power & is willing to let her obtain that power when it aligns with his rules also. Sometimes even when it doesn't I guess. He didn't burn Edric, nor was he convinced to burn Edric I don't think but he was talking himself into it, or trying to. 

Agree.

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

Just to share the quote you are referring to:

This is a very narrow sense of his being righteous, namely that his willingness to fight the Others makes him righteous. "Truly righteous" implies to me someone who is absolutely upstanding and moral, whereas I suspect George's intention -- especially when you consider "in spite of everything" in that same quote -- is  more like, "at least he has some righteous aim in his seeking the throne, to try and save the world, but he's a flawed guy who's making some bad choices to try and get there."

I am very familiar w/ that quote.

I shouldn’t have said “truly”, obviously. And I agree, Stannis is very grey like that, and certainly capable of some bad and very questionable decisions. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Not necessarily IMO. I think it’s more manipulation, Mel style. For instance, she tells Stannis something along the lines of, “your brother is doomed, I have seen it in the flames. I would spare him, if I could”. 

I could see this also. 

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Definitely. But does he know the details? I think the killing of Penrose in the same way, via shadowbaby, supports the idea that Stannis doesn’t really know exactly how Renly was killed. Think about it... Mel tells him Renly is as good as dead. They have sex, meaning neither he nor she are anywhere near Renly’s camp, and Renly dies. Later, Mel tells Stannis she needs to be “near” SE to deal w/ Penrose, Stannis has Davos take her there. Penrose dies, and he (Stannis) isn’t anywhere near Mel and Davos. 

Yeah, I agree Stannis doesn't know the details but I think it's because he doesn't really want to know the details. He knows she is doing some weird shit but he is content to not ask the details as long as it works.

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It does make sense. You’re saying he’s in denial about it, right? Could be. Could also be a combination of things, like not knowing exactly how any of Mel’s spells work and denial.

Yep exactly. I think if he really wanted to know he could & would ask but he doesn't really want to know because he knows he may not approve of the methods & also because he doesn't really believe in that stuff he won't really understand how the spell works anyway. 

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You're right here. This is Stannis versus his shadow. Deep down Stannis will do anything to win the throne, and the shadow facilitates that while Stannis' hands remain clean, so to speak. There is an element of denial involved for sure, he doesn't want his image tarnished by such a thing, but he needs something to win Renly's host and Storm's End.

Well put.  The shadow assassin is Stannis' darkest impulses given form (of a sort).  It's basically the plot of one of GRRM's favorite movies the Forbidden Planet.  Where the mysterious invisible creature was formed by a machine which gave it life from the shadow self/ID of man.

I think GRRM has studied Jungian psychology a bit.  

Quote

Carl Jung stated the shadow to be the unknown dark side of the personality.^[4][5] According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to psychological projection, in which a perceived personal inferiority is recognized as a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections remain hidden, "The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power."^[6] These projections insulate and harm individuals by acting as a constantly thickening veil of illusion between the ego and the real world.

 

[Nevets]

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm glad you agree that Ramsay needs Arya for political reasons. So he needs the charade with Jeyne to continue. Why then is he asking one of the only people left alive that knows it is not Arya for her back, when it is not her?

Because he has no choice.  It is likely he knows they made it to Stannis's camp.   If he can't find Jeyne there, the only logical place to send her is the Wall.  He knows, or believes, that Jon and Stannis are working closely, and Stannis doesn't control anything else except Deepwood Motte, which is even more indefensible and unsafe than the Wall is.  If she is on her way to the Wall, the cat is essentially out of the bag.  The only thing he can do is try to shove it back in as best he can, which means demanding her back, and intimidating Jon into remaining silent, and branding him a liar if he doesn't.  He might try to get her back, and if he does, then the letter is moot, at least as it pertains to "his bride".

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Even if they flee to Essos the situation is not irretrievable. If Stannis can't win the north to his cause, which looks unlikely without Jon, then it's game over. You have to weigh it up. And of course Stannis is hoping that Mel will pick up on the first lines of the letter.

That wasn't really my question.  My question is , why is it in there in the first place?  Unless he wants them to go to Essos, which I doubt.  By the way, I think Stannis has a far greater chance of gaining the North's homage than you do, apparently.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis problem with the northerners is that they might want to crown him King-of-the-North, not that they will be angry he deserted.

I don't know why they couldn't be angry with him.  They hold the NW is high regard, and I don't think they will appreciate its LC chucking his oath to join Stannis.  Why should they follow an oathbreaker?

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The north has no love for Stannis, nor any king in King's Landing for that matter as they recently declared their independence. Stannis thinks Lord Wyman killed Davos, and he had an insulting letter from Wyman prior to sending Davos to treat, so the allegiance of White Harbor and others would go a lot better if Stannis had Jon on his side as his Lord of Winterfell.

Stannis isn't in Kings Landing; he is in Winterfell, helping the Northerners get rid of their enemies.  They may not love him, but they will damn sure appreciate what he has done for them.  As for the Manderlys, he can give them an offer they can't refuse.  "Prove to me that you're on my side, or I'll execute you for murdering my envoy."

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 minutes ago, Nevets said:

My question is , why is it in there in the first place?  Unless he wants them to go to Essos, which I doubt.

I think he may. Especially if he is wanting Jon to leave the wall. He knows the Long Night is coming & neither he nor Jon will be there to protect his family. It's very reasonable for him to want his family far away from there. 

3 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I don't know why they couldn't be angry with him.  They hold the NW is high regard, and I don't think they will appreciate its LC chucking his oath to join Stannis.  Why should they follow an oathbreaker?

They could be angry with him but I highly doubt they will. I don't recall them holding the NW in high regard but it's LC wouldn't be chucking his oath to join Stannis. A son of Ned Stark would be taking his seat as Lord of Winterfell something the northern lords will want. I don't know why they would see it as oathbreaking. If they recognize Stannis as king & he offers to absolve Jon of his vows, & Jon accepts (something he probably won't do but would definitely not do unless the northern lords supported him) Then he didn't break vows, he was absolved of them. 

6 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Stannis isn't in Kings Landing; he is in Winterfell, helping the Northerners get rid of their enemies.  They may not love him, but they will damn sure appreciate what he has done for them.  As for the Manderlys, he can give them an offer they can't refuse.  "Prove to me that you're on my side, or I'll execute you for murdering my envoy."

It doesn't matter where he is, he is another king trying to take independence from the North. Sure they may appreciate his helping to rid them of the Boltons but they are not going to march south to fight for him. 

He could say that to the Manderly's but that wouldn't make the Manderly's loyal would it? The Manderly's want a Stark in WF & Stannis providing them with one would do loads to get them on his side. 

[Nevets]

@three-eyed monkey, @Lyanna<3Rhaegar, can you please explain to me why Stannis is going to think that Jon will ride to Winterfell in response to this letter.  Jon has no army, as far as Stannis knows, so what does he think Jon would be trying to accomplish?  As opposed to preparing for Ramsay's imminent arrival.  Which would involve bolstering defenses to the extent he can, evacuating non-essential personnel, and maybe setting up ambushes in the Gift.  All of which require his presence in or near Castle Black, not Winterfell.  I can't see any reason why, if written by Stannis, this particular letter is going to accomplish its purported goal of getting Jon to Winterfell.