Is Stannis guilty of killing Renly?

[Dreadscythe95]

4 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Indeed. I do believe that was my original point. 

On this we agree then.

[Tyrion1991]

Just now, Dreadscythe95 said:

It wasn't a killing in battle. He murdered him by magic. Tywin was also in a war with the Starks but he did play a part in their murder. I think we are playing with words here guys... 

The question is, is Stannis moraly forgiven? That's the only thing that matters.

 

Is this like Oblivion where they banned Necormancy? If people don’t believe in magic then there aren’t any laws on the books against using it. This is just another weapon. Would a steel dagger have been more appropriate?

You can’t say he’s committed a crime if it’s not illegal.

Tywin was an idiot who gave up on a ton of valuable hostages and gold to make a point. He had them captured in a friendly fortress and then massacred. That is an entirely different situation to Stannis. Had he assassinated Rob Stark when he was encamped outside Moat Calin he would have been entirely justified in doing so.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

19 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The previous Hand of the King confirmed that Joffrey was illegitimate. Ned has no reason to usurp his allies son and nothing to gain setting Stannis on the throne. Plus his honesty is beyond repute. Everyone should know Stannis is the legal King and Jof is incest child. They don’t, despite the Lannister’s being in a tough spot in Clash, because reasons...

Sure, and we know that's true but in all reality Stannis nor Renly know it for certain. 

I don't know how everyone would know. It's not announced or anything. Regardless, they don't know so according to the King of Westeros, both Stannis & Renly are rebels. 

Just to be clear, I think Renly was being dumb & should have bent the knee to his elder, but from a legal standpoint in universe this is not how it's viewed. 

19 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Stannis didn’t kill Renly at a dinner table. He was an enemy commander in the field with an army coming to kill Stannis. Assassinating an empire commander is a legitimate tactic in war; still firmly employed even today. Stannis even did it without collateral damage. 

Except he wasn't an enemy commander in the field, because he wasn't in the field yet. He killed him via a route that is not likely to be viewed as honorable. 

19 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Was Robert a kinslayer for killing Rhaegar and overthrowing a branch of his own family? What about Rob looping off Karstarks thick inbred Northern skull? If it’s only kinslaying if they have the same last name then that seems a very narrow and weak definition of family and kin

I'm not sure. If I had to guess then I would imagine the closer you are related the worse the kinslaying would be considered. But I don't know that we get definitive answers on that. 

I think there is something to be considered irt that though. Cousins aren't viewed the same as siblings. We know this because it isn't considered incest to marry your cousin but it is to marry your sibling. 

I didn't write the rules on kinslaying nor am I saying I necessarily agree with them but whether or not killing cousins/distant relatives is considered kinslaying, we know for certain killing a brother is. 

21 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Plus I don’t think it’s consistently applied in terms of how much moral vehemence people have for this. I think this is bound up in an archaic and absurd notion of honour that we shouldn’t take seriously. If your brother is trying to kill you then it’s not kinslaying if you get him first; after you tried to talk him out of it.

I agree with you on a moral level, I'm just talking about how this would be viewed in universe. 

I don't think we can forget, though, that while Renly certainly would have tried to kill Stannis &/or his host & Stannis certainly offered Renly terms that, had he accepted, made a battle unnecessary, it is also true that Stannis would have tried to kill Renly &/or his host as well & was offered the same terms to avoid battle. My point being; this is not a clear cut case of self defense. Stannis brought his army to Renly's doorstep, not the other way around. 

24 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Tsar Ivan the Terrible murdered his son but that wasn’t on the field of battle, he just snapped and killed him out of rage in an argument. If his son had raised a rebellion against him and was in a field of battle I doubt it would be anywhere near as notorious an event. Context is important. I mean Peter the Great has his own captive son tortured to death yet he’s considered a great statesman and founder of modern Russia. What Stannis did was tame.

I agree context is important & would disagree with anyone who said what these people did was not horrendous or worse than what Stannis did. That, in itself, does not absolve him of any blame he potentially holds though. 

[Tyrion1991]

2 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, and we know that's true but in all reality Stannis nor Renly know it for certain. 

I don't know how everyone would know. It's not announced or anything. Regardless, they don't know so according to the King of Westeros, both Stannis & Renly are rebels. 

Just to be clear, I think Renly was being dumb & should have bent the knee to his elder, but from a legal standpoint in universe this is not how it's viewed. 

Except he wasn't an enemy commander in the field, because he wasn't in the field yet. He killed him via a route that is not likely to be viewed as honorable. 

I'm not sure. If I had to guess then I would imagine the closer you are related the worse the kinslaying would be considered. But I don't know that we get definitive answers on that. 

I think there is something to be considered irt that though. Cousins aren't viewed the same as siblings. We know this because it isn't considered incest to marry your cousin but it is to marry your sibling. 

I didn't write the rules on kinslaying nor am I saying I necessarily agree with them but whether or not killing cousins/distant relatives is considered kinslaying, we know for certain killing a brother is. 

I agree with you on a moral level, I'm just talking about how this would be viewed in universe. 

I don't think we can forget, though, that while Renly certainly would have tried to kill Stannis &/or his host & Stannis certainly offered Renly terms that, had he accepted, made a battle unnecessary, it is also true that Stannis would have tried to kill Renly &/or his host as well & was offered the same terms to avoid battle. My point being; this is not a clear cut case of self defense. Stannis brought his army to Renly's doorstep, not the other way around. 

I agree context is important & would disagree with anyone who said what these people did was not horrendous or worse than what Stannis did. That, in itself, does not absolve him of any blame he potentially holds though. 

 

Stannis didn’t doubt Ned. That everybody else did even though there has never been a blonde Baratheon; that’s something else. No character really seems to assess Neds motivations for launching this coup. Olenna does say to Sansa along the lines of “your father was an honest man” which is the first time there’s any double take on this. But that’s on ASOS and it’s not until Crows that people seem to be clocking. I don’t buy this. Joff obviously isn’t Robs son and everybody conveniently doesn’t ask why Ned launches a coup.

It doesn’t matter if he’s in the field of battle. Was Rob a murderer when he ambushed the Lannister army in camp in the Westerlands with his cavalry and direwolf? Stannis achieved the same victory with less death. He’s a legitimate target in a time of war. The method employed was not illegal or banned. So it’s not a crime.

If you don’t agree with the fictional rules of kinslaying George setup then I don’t see why it should factor in a moral take on what Stannis did. It’s like asking if the celibacy practiced by the NW and KG is a good idea. No and that wouldn’t inform moral judgements on characters breaking that rule. Same principle here.

[Dreadscythe95]

31 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Is this like Oblivion where they banned Necormancy? If people don’t believe in magic then there aren’t any laws on the books against using it. This is just another weapon. Would a steel dagger have been more appropriate?

You can’t say he’s committed a crime if it’s not illegal.

Tywin was an idiot who gave up on a ton of valuable hostages and gold to make a point. He had them captured in a friendly fortress and then massacred. That is an entirely different situation to Stannis. Had he assassinated Rob Stark when he was encamped outside Moat Calin he would have been entirely justified in doing so.

So you are playing with the law now?

In Nazi Germany it was legal to kill  crippled people to purge the genes. In 1800 Europe they believed in artificial selection is humans (killing the weak and leaving the strong reporduce)  Does that mean that these are a moraly good actions? Murder has ALWAYS been a condemned action in all societies. In Ottoman Empire it was very common for Sultans to kill their children that would not take the trone to eliminate infighting and civil war, it was a common act that was accepted. It doesn't mean that fathers didn't murder their own children because they did.

Do you have no morals as a person? Do you only believe in law of a specific state? Or are you such a big Stannis stan that you try to convince me that Stannis is an innocent guy that didn't know what was gonna happen? 

[Tyrion1991]

19 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

So you are playing with the law now?

In Nazi Germany it was legal to kill  crippled people to purge the genes. In 1800 Europe they believed in artificial selection is humans (killing the weak and leaving the strong reporduce)  Does that mean that these are a moraly good actions? Murder has ALWAYS been a condemned action in all societies. In Ottoman Empire it was very common for Sultans to kill their children that would not take the trone to eliminate infighting and civil war, it was a common act that was accepted. It doesn't mean that fathers didn't murder their own children because they did.

Do you have no morals as a person? Do you only believe in law of a specific state? Or are you such a big Stannis stan that you try to convince me that Stannis is an innocent guy that didn't know what was gonna happen? 

 

The holocaust is a terrible analogy. That’s a question of sovereignty and human rights. A better example would have been WW1 and the banning of poison gas. At the time considered a legitimate weapon in war but later considered morally repugnant and dehumanising.

You are arguing that Stannis is a bad man because he used magic to kill Renly. That the very method was so deplorable that it is a crime. But it’s not, the shadow simply simulates a cutting comparable to that of a conventional dagger being drawn across the throat. Since daggers are not banned in the real world then why would a magically dagger be morally unacceptable? Poison gas was banned because they involved horrendously dehumanising and cruel methods of inflicting massive amount s of pain. A magical dagger does not qualify. 

Again, if there is an insurgent planning an attack in a war camp and a sniper shoots him. That’s not considered murder. Nobody bats an eyelid at that. That is what’s happening here. Explain to me how the situation is different with Renly and Stannis? It’s not murder. 

Yes I have morals. In the real world there’s international law and human rights. None of these would consider Renlys death a crime. No he’s a Foolish Usurper, a False Messiah and I would have wanted Dany to be Queen.

[Angel Eyes]

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The holocaust is a terrible analogy. That’s a question of sovereignty and human rights. A better example would have been WW1 and the banning of poison gas. At the time considered a legitimate weapon in war but later considered morally repugnant and dehumanising.

You are arguing that Stannis is a bad man because he used magic to kill Renly. That the very method was so deplorable that it is a crime. But it’s not, the shadow simply simulates a cutting comparable to that of a conventional dagger being drawn across the throat. Since daggers are not banned in the real world then why would a magically dagger be morally unacceptable? Poison gas was banned because they involved horrendously dehumanising and cruel methods of inflicting massive amount s of pain. A magical dagger does not qualify. 

Again, if there is an insurgent planning an attack in a war camp and a sniper shoots him. That’s not considered murder. Nobody bats an eyelid at that. That is what’s happening here. Explain to me how the situation is different with Renly and Stannis? It’s not murder. 

Renly would have tried to kill Stannis on the battlefield anyways. It would have been him or Stannis.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

23 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Stannis didn’t doubt Ned. That everybody else did even though there has never been a blonde Baratheon; that’s something else. No character really seems to assess Neds motivations for launching this coup. Olenna does say to Sansa along the lines of “your father was an honest man” which is the first time there’s any double take on this. But that’s on ASOS and it’s not until Crows that people seem to be clocking. I don’t buy this. Joff obviously isn’t Robs son and everybody conveniently doesn’t ask why Ned launches a coup

I don't know that everyone else doubted him. Who else knew? Jon Arryn, who died. I don't recall Ned telling anyone except Cersei. Did he tell Stannis? For some reason I thought Stannis came up with it on his own but I could be wrong. LF & Varys undoubtedly know but they aren't telling. 

At any rate Ned publicly admitted to conspiring to steal Joff's throne. No one asks because they think they know the answer. 

28 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It doesn’t matter if he’s in the field of battle

It doesn't matter to who? Or in what context? 

It makes no difference to me, personally but you said he killed an enemy commander in the field of battle. He didn't, because he wasn't in a field of battle. 

And it will likely matter to the majority of the Lords & Commanders of Westeros.

30 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Was Rob a murderer when he ambushed the Lannister army in camp in the Westerlands with his cavalry and direwolf?

I suppose no more or less than any other commander in battle. 

31 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Stannis achieved the same victory with less death.

Indeed he did. So did Tywin with the RW. Doesn't mean it's not illegal or morally wrong. 

32 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

He’s a legitimate target in a time of war. The method employed was not illegal or banned. So it’s not a crime.

I understand that's what you believe but I don't think in universe they would agree with you. 

33 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

If you don’t agree with the fictional rules of kinslaying George setup then I don’t see why it should factor in a moral take on what Stannis did

Well, just because I don't agree with the fictional rules of kinslaying in George's story doesn't mean I don't have rules to my own morals. Killing is morally wrong most of the time, IMO. It seems a little worse to kill a family member. I'd say unless you are killing in self defense, it's morally wrong. Of course that's just my opinion. 

35 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It’s like asking if the celibacy practiced by the NW and KG is a good idea. No and that wouldn’t inform moral judgements on characters breaking that rule. Same principle here

The in universe rules are not factoring into my moral judgement, I'm just giving you both my own moral judgement & the views, as I see them, in universe. 

[Tyrion1991]

Just now, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know that everyone else doubted him. Who else knew? Jon Arryn, who died. I don't recall Ned telling anyone except Cersei. Did he tell Stannis? For some reason I thought Stannis came up with it on his own but I could be wrong. LF & Varys undoubtedly know but they aren't telling. 

At any rate Ned publicly admitted to conspiring to steal Joff's throne. No one asks because they think they know the answer. 

It doesn't matter to who? Or in what context? 

It makes no difference to me, personally but you said he killed an enemy commander in the field of battle. He didn't, because he wasn't in a field of battle. 

And it will likely matter to the majority of the Lords & Commanders of Westeros.

I suppose no more or less than any other commander in battle. 

Indeed he did. So did Tywin with the RW. Doesn't mean it's not illegal or morally wrong. 

I understand that's what you believe but I don't think in universe they would agree with you. 

Well, just because I don't agree with the fictional rules of kinslaying in George's story doesn't mean I don't have rules to my own morals. Killing is morally wrong most of the time, IMO. It seems a little worse to kill a family member. I'd say unless you are killing in self defense, it's morally wrong. Of course that's just my opinion. 

The in universe rules are not factoring into my moral judgement, I'm just giving you both my own moral judgement & the views, as I see them, in universe. 

 

He was in KL quite a while. He had plenty of time to talk to his retinue and relay information on to relevant people. Who would be likely to tell. Which doesn’t happen because reasons. It’s funny how inconvenient information that heightens drama spreads like wildfire but something that would imbalance the plot doesn’t.

Nobody thinks that’s a confession under duress? After time in the Cells?

Well the Lords of Westeros are idiots and self serving hyporocrites then. Rob Stark rampaging through an encampment full of sleeping men and cutting them down is a legitimate act of war whilst using a GASP dagger of dark and terrible magic most foul to part the throat of Renly is muder most foul. Who was, you know, innocently preparing to march to battle to put his brothers head on a pike. 

Tywin had Rob and the Northern Nobles in his power once they were in the twins. It was a simple matter to put them in jail and destroy the Northern army. He chose not to. That makes it a massacre. Stannis did not have Renly in his power. Renly was in his war camp with his army and certain to win the battle on the morning. Very different. It’s like saying launching a drone strike on an insurgent base where they’re planning an attack and are armed is morally or legally equivalent to executing unarmed prisoners. These are hugely different situations with the RW.

Well Cat remarks on this when she’s belittling the two for not settling their differences. That they’re at odds despite being kin is addressed very clearly. But they’re both as bad as eachother in this regard.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

He was in KL quite a while. He had plenty of time to talk to his retinue and relay information on to relevant people. Who would be likely to tell. Which doesn’t happen because reasons. It’s funny how inconvenient information that heightens drama spreads like wildfire but something that would imbalance the plot doesn’t

I would imagine he would be pretty tight lipped about it until he got to tell Robert right? When Robert returns he is on his death bed. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Nobody thinks that’s a confession under duress? After time in the Cells?

I would think not. Not in a  medieval setting. It's not been too long ago that we have started to recognize false confessions. 

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Well the Lords of Westeros are idiots and self serving hyporocrites then. Rob Stark rampaging through an encampment full of sleeping men and cutting them down is a legitimate act of war whilst using a GASP dagger of dark and terrible magic most foul to part the throat of Renly is muder most foul. Who was, you know, innocently preparing to march to battle to put his brothers head on a pike

Well, yeah. They are ignorant. They fear that which they do not understand. That's why so many women were burned at the stake as witches. The masses are still ignorant IMO, but that's another story. 

The only thing is Stannis was gonna march to battle to put his brothers head on a spike too. I'm not arguing Renly was better than Stannis, I'm saying in this respect they were much the same. Stannis certainly has the better claim & Renly is an ass for not recognizing it but in the end they were both willing to kill their brother over a crown that neither one of them will ever likely possess. 

13 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Tywin had Rob and the Northern Nobles in his power once they were in the twins. It was a simple matter to put them in jail and destroy the Northern army. He chose not to. That makes it a massacre

Sure, I understand the difference. I was just pointing out that just because a victory was made with less bloodshed doesn't mean it was legal or moral. 

14 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Stannis did not have Renly in his power. Renly was in his war camp with his army and certain to win the battle on the morning. Very different. It’s like saying launching a drone strike on an insurgent base where they’re planning an attack and are armed is morally or legally equivalent to executing unarmed prisoners. These are hugely different situations with the RW

Right, but Stannis brought his army to Renly, to a battle he knew he would not likely win. He demanded Renly bend the knee or be prepared to meet him in battle. Stannis brought the fight to him. 

15 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Well Cat remarks on this when she’s belittling the two for not settling their differences. That they’re at odds despite being kin is addressed very clearly. But they’re both as bad as eachother in this regard

Agreed. 

[Dreadscythe95]

8 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The holocaust is a terrible analogy. That’s a question of sovereignty and human rights. A better example would have been WW1 and the banning of poison gas. At the time considered a legitimate weapon in war but later considered morally repugnant and dehumanising.

You are arguing that Stannis is a bad man because he used magic to kill Renly. That the very method was so deplorable that it is a crime. But it’s not, the shadow simply simulates a cutting comparable to that of a conventional dagger being drawn across the throat. Since daggers are not banned in the real world then why would a magically dagger be morally unacceptable? Poison gas was banned because they involved horrendously dehumanising and cruel methods of inflicting massive amount s of pain. A magical dagger does not qualify. 

Again, if there is an insurgent planning an attack in a war camp and a sniper shoots him. That’s not considered murder. Nobody bats an eyelid at that. That is what’s happening here. Explain to me how the situation is different with Renly and Stannis? It’s not murder. 

Yes I have morals. In the real world there’s international law and human rights. None of these would consider Renlys death a crime. No he’s a Foolish Usurper, a False Messiah and I would have wanted Dany to be Queen.

Yes, Idk if you know it but Fritz Haber, the biigest Chemist in development of the poisonus gas known us Mustard Gas lost his wife back then because when she leanred what he had done afte rthe first release of the gases, she commited suicide. 

Yes, War is cruel and you are allowed to kill but it doesn't mean that it's not a bad act or that you are above human beliefs.

Stannis and Renly wanted teh Throne more than anything and they would remove each other in order to achieve their goals. Both wanted each other dead and Stannis used Melissandre to achieve it. She used Stannis blood to create a shadow in his shape to go at night and murder him. He even dreamed the whole thing.

Sorry but this is murder, even if it is War. Noone is gonna put him on Jail and there are no laws against what he did but he is still a kin slayer and that's the end of the story.

And sorry but in today's society  it is never ok to kill someone even if he wronged you and even in War killing people is not a walk at the park. 

Also Userper? Yes Renly is a Userper noone said that the throne belongs to him. The Baratheons are Userpers on the throne anyway. That's how power works, you take what you can, it's not a clean game anyway. Kings are not send by the Gods, they are humans that use to power to control other humans. Renly is not better than Stannis to that regard but he was a far better politician that managed to secure a much bigger support for the Throne. Would Renly kill Stannis if it was neccesary? Probably yes and he would also be a kin slayer.

I am not trying to defend Renly here, I am saying that Stannis isn't the good guy so many people in here claim. He is powerhungry and he has done MANY crimes to take The Iron Throne, his "birthright".

[Tyrion1991]

1 hour ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Yes, Idk if you know it but Fritz Haber, the biigest Chemist in development of the poisonus gas known us Mustard Gas lost his wife back then because when she leanred what he had done afte rthe first release of the gases, she commited suicide. 

Yes, War is cruel and you are allowed to kill but it doesn't mean that it's not a bad act or that you are above human beliefs.

Stannis and Renly wanted teh Throne more than anything and they would remove each other in order to achieve their goals. Both wanted each other dead and Stannis used Melissandre to achieve it. She used Stannis blood to create a shadow in his shape to go at night and murder him. He even dreamed the whole thing.

Sorry but this is murder, even if it is War. Noone is gonna put him on Jail and there are no laws against what he did but he is still a kin slayer and that's the end of the story.

And sorry but in today's society  it is never ok to kill someone even if he wronged you and even in War killing people is not a walk at the park. 

Also Userper? Yes Renly is a Userper noone said that the throne belongs to him. The Baratheons are Userpers on the throne anyway. That's how power works, you take what you can, it's not a clean game anyway. Kings are not send by the Gods, they are humans that use to power to control other humans. Renly is not better than Stannis to that regard but he was a far better politician that managed to secure a much bigger support for the Throne. Would Renly kill Stannis if it was neccesary? Probably yes and he would also be a kin slayer.

I am not trying to defend Renly here, I am saying that Stannis isn't the good guy so many people in here claim. He is powerhungry and he has done MANY crimes to take The Iron Throne, his "birthright".

 

Its nice that you’re a pacifist and believe all violence is wrong. But that’s not a majority opinion or the view of many nations in the world today. 

I am not sure why I should condemn Stannis for this any more than Ned cutting a mans head off for being a “deserter” to some backwards institution. The Starks have been torturing and murdering their peasants for years to stay in power. Why should one brother killing another in a time of war be held up as an unspeakable crime set against that? They are all criminals partaking in a violent and repressive social system. It’s splitting hairs to single out individual acts of cruelty on these noble landlords. 

[Eltharion21]

12 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

So you are playing with the law now?

In Nazi Germany it was legal to kill  crippled people to purge the genes. In 1800 Europe they believed in artificial selection is humans (killing the weak and leaving the strong reporduce)  Does that mean that these are a moraly good actions? Murder has ALWAYS been a condemned action in all societies. In Ottoman Empire it was very common for Sultans to kill their children that would not take the trone to eliminate infighting and civil war, it was a common act that was accepted. It doesn't mean that fathers didn't murder their own children because they did.

Do you have no morals as a person? Do you only believe in law of a specific state? Or are you such a big Stannis stan that you try to convince me that Stannis is an innocent guy that didn't know what was gonna happen? 

I disagree  killing people like Hitler for example, would potentially prevent deaths of many people during the WWII. 

In Martin works we see similar situation when rulers refuse to commit kinslaying , which later brings more woe and even doom to their dynasty. ( Viserys I / Daemon Targaryen and Balon Greyjoy/Euron).

Law isn't always equivalent to justice , it is but attempt of society to uphold to those ideals and sometimes flawed.

Quote

—your brother is the lawful heir."
"While he lives," Renly admitted. "Though it's a fool's law, wouldn't you agree? Why the oldest son, and not the best-fitted? The crown will suit me, as it never suited Robert and would not suit Stannis. I have it in me to be a great king, strong yet generous, clever, just, diligent, loyal to my friends and terrible to my enemies, yet capable of forgiveness, patient—"
"—humble?" Catelyn supplied.

 

Quote

“When my brother falls, see that no insult is done to his corpse. He is my own blood, I will not have his head paraded about on a spear.”

By morals of Westerosi society Renly owes Stannis allegiance as Stannis gave his to Robert over Aerys.  Renly is a traitor who is planning to kill his brother in few hours.

Stannis only shot first to use Star Wars analogy.

[Dreadscythe95]

4 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Its nice that you’re a pacifist and believe all violence is wrong. But that’s not a majority opinion or the view of many nations in the world today. 

I am not sure why I should condemn Stannis for this any more than Ned cutting a mans head off for being a “deserter” to some backwards institution. The Starks have been torturing and murdering their peasants for years to stay in power. Why should one brother killing another in a time of war be held up as an unspeakable crime set against that? They are all criminals partaking in a violent and repressive social system. It’s splitting hairs to single out individual acts of cruelty on these noble landlords. 

What Ned did was The Law.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

By morals of Westerosi society Renly owes Stannis allegiance as Stannis gave his to Robert over Aerys.  Renly is a traitor who is planning to kill his brother in few hours.

Stannis only shot first to use Star Wars analogy.

Renly owes allegiance to Robert's sons. Not to Stannis.

[Trigger Warning]

6 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

By morals of Westerosi society Renly owes Stannis allegiance as Stannis gave his to Robert over Aerys.  Renly is a traitor who is planning to kill his brother in few hours.

Stannis only shot first to use Star Wars analogy.

 

Robert was Stannis' lord, at the time of his rebellion Renly has no master save Joffrey Baratheon. Stannis being the elder brother doesn't make the Lord of Storm's End his subordinate.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

I disagree  killing people like Hitler for example, would potentially prevent deaths of many people during the WWII. 

In Martin works we see similar situation when rulers refuse to commit kinslaying , which later brings more woe and even doom to their dynasty. ( Viserys I / Daemon Targaryen and Balon Greyjoy/Euron).

Law isn't always equivalent to justice , it is but attempt of society to uphold to those ideals and sometimes flawed.

 

By morals of Westerosi society Renly owes Stannis allegiance as Stannis gave his to Robert over Aerys.  Renly is a traitor who is planning to kill his brother in few hours.

Stannis only shot first to use Star Wars analogy.

By laws of Westerosi society Stannis is just as much of a traitor as Renly. 

Stannis shot first because Stannis brought a fight to Renly that he could not win. Renly did not come to Stannis, so this is hardly a matter of self-defense. 

[Tyrion1991]

6 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

What Ned did was The Law.

 

What that rat did was a joke and the hypocrite got what he deserved.

Cutting an innocent mans head off? 

For “deserting” a morally bankrupt institution into which he was likely conscripted against his will? That or be executed? Enforcing such a law is not moral. That’s like praising a man rounding up escapees from a Russian gulag. Is he supposed to take forced labour until he collapses and dies with grace? Does that offend Mr Stark and his family?

Because he said some words and breaking your word is considered taboo and culturally offensive by a provincial and ignorant pre modern society? Death being the only answer? That’s not law, that’s a lynch mob dressed up in fine words and theatre. It’s okay if you own it and swing the sword yourself. If you pretend to be stoic and it enjoy it. I bet Brandon Stark loved it. How many peasants do you think he chopped up before he got burnt alive?

This is a criminal society. These people are gangsters running a protection racket. There is a reason why so much of history is society slowly moving beyond and casting aside that none sense in the renaissance and enlightenment. Feudalism is bad. That the Starks don’t have a problem Fuedalism is a huge issue that casts a shadow over everything they do.

Summary execution without trial is considered immoral and illegal in most countries in the real world. Killing an armed enemy commander in a time of war is not. Ned killing that deserter is far more objectionable than Stannis using a shadow to kill his brother. 

[Dreadscythe95]

12 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

What that rat did was a joke and the hypocrite got what he deserved.

Cutting an innocent mans head off? 

For “deserting” a morally bankrupt institution into which he was likely conscripted against his will? That or be executed? Enforcing such a law is not moral. That’s like praising a man rounding up escapees from a Russian gulag. Is he supposed to take forced labour until he collapses and dies with grace? Does that offend Mr Stark and his family?

Because he said some words and breaking your word is considered taboo and culturally offensive by a provincial and ignorant pre modern society? Death being the only answer? That’s not law, that’s a lynch mob dressed up in fine words and theatre. It’s okay if you own it and swing the sword yourself. If you pretend to be stoic and it enjoy it. I bet Brandon Stark loved it. How many peasants do you think he chopped up before he got burnt alive?

This is a criminal society. These people are gangsters running a protection racket. There is a reason why so much of history is society slowly moving beyond and casting aside that none sense in the renaissance and enlightenment. Feudalism is bad. That the Starks don’t have a problem Fuedalism is a huge issue that casts a shadow over everything they do.

Summary execution without trial is considered immoral and illegal in most countries in the real world. Killing an armed enemy commander in a time of war is not. Ned killing that deserter is far more objectionable than Stannis using a shadow to kill his brother. 

It's desertion and in desertion many used excecution as punishment. The Romans did it as well. And "rat" really, relax.

I never said that it's a good society, it's based on a madieval society after all. You are the one that is trying to convince us that Stannis is a moraly good guy. Feudalism is bad for today, it is what it is for history. You can't judge history based on today, you judge it based on it's time. These people that were parts of The Great Houses lived the lifes of priviledged people and they knew that you either live like that or you live like a peasant and your life doesn't even matter. In a revolution things change but thats another discussion.

What you are saying now is historical anachronism, you judge feudalism with the criteria of today. Of course it was bad and that's why it fell for capitalism but every system has a rise and a decay, capitalism also isn't good for today but we still have it and we still live by it's rules.

It's like saying that Alexander The Great was the wort person alive. Well he was a great butcher but most people of his time where great butchers.

 

[Tyrion1991]

21 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

It's desertion and in desertion many use excecution as punishment. And "rat" really?

I never said that it's a good society, it's based on a madieval society after all. You are the one that is trying to convince us that Stannis is a moraly good guy. Feudalism is bad for today, it is what it is for history. You can;t judge history based on today, you judge it based on it's time. These people that were parts of The Great Houses lived the life of priviledged people and they knew that you either live like that or you live like a peasant and your life doesn;t evven matter. In a revolution things change but thats another discussion.

What you are saying now is historical anachronism, you judge feudalism with the criteria of today. Of course it was bad and that's why it fell for capitalism but every system has a rise and a decay, capitalism also isn't good for today but we still have it and we still live by it's rules.

It's like saying that Alexander The Great was the wort person alive. Well he was a great butcher but most people of his time where great butchers.

 

 

You think running away from a press gang is bad and that we should glorify the man which cuts his head off?

Am I meant to swallow that romantic dross about him being the Quiet Wolf and a sensitive soul. He’s scum and a hypocrite. His suffering means less than nothing. Thousands of Northerners have been killed to satisfy his families desire for vengeance and personal honour. They are selfish and have brought nothing but death and misery upon Westeros. They have never owned up to their own failures and have an obnoxious victim mentality. 

I do. Fuedalism was not the only form of social organisation at the time. Many city states existed, like Venice, that were especially by the Renaissance espousing more early modern values; even forms of republicanism. Who openly opposed and fought against rural feudal control. There were societies like Athens and the Roman Republic preceding it that did not feudal view. You also had larger and more beuractratic states like in China that were centuries ahead of the West. Plus, in the real world you had medieval systems like Parliament, Common and Roman Law which is entirely absent from Westeros. They wrote the Magna Carta in the Middle Ages. So even by the standard of the Middle Ages the North is wilfully primitive and ignorant society. 

The author asks you to constantly make moral judgements and questions. Why are we meant to question the ethics of the Red Wedding or Slavery if we’re not casting modern morality about? If we are casting modern morality about then yes, that should also apply to the Starks uncritical benefit of feudalism. It’s a little rich for them be saying Woe is me when Winterfell should have people being branded, whipped and executed in the town square on a regular basis. Using force and threat of violence to control the tenants which they keep in near slavery and extort labour from.