Is Stannis guilty of killing Renly?

[Dreadscythe95]

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

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. 

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. 

 

 

Do you think Athens or even Rome had true democracy? In Athens 10% of the population had the right vote. We stilla dmire it for what it was back them.

As for Ned Stark, the same can be said for any other lord. Stannis did exactly the same, killing thousands to feed his hunger of Power. Feudalism burdens everyone in the series, not only Ned Stark.

 

[Tyrion1991]

4 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Do you think Athens or even Rome had true democracy? In Athens 10% of the population had the right vote. We stilla dmire it for what it was back them.

As for Ned Stark, the same can be said for any other lord. Stannis did exactly the same, killing thousands to feed his hunger of Power. Feudalism burdens everyone in the series, not only Ned Stark.

 

 

Because it’s better than the alternative which is bastard Fuedalism. Besides, even the Middles Ages was far more advanced and beyond the world depicted in Westeros. Magna Carta, Parliament, Common Law. An Englishman in 1480 would think the Northerners were barbarians little better than the Britons he read about in the Classics. 

I agree the Starks are no more legitimate than any other House in Westeros. I wish the text was more self aware of this. You’re saying that as if peoples don’t hold positive views of House Stark. 

It does not burden Ned Stark if the author downplays this aspect and misdirects it with “moral dilemma” over minor things like Stannis using dark magic to kill his brother. Who cares? You just had a peasant hung drawn and quartered for stealing a loaf of bread. You just took half their produce to feed your troops and now their children will starve in winter. It should be front and centre. He avoids tarnishing them with this association with fuedalism. I don’t think he’s being subtle, I think he as an author is avoiding this issue in relation to the Starks. 

[Dreadscythe95]

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Because it’s better than the alternative which is bastard Fuedalism. Besides, even the Middles Ages was far more advanced and beyond the world depicted in Westeros. Magna Carta, Parliament, Common Law. An Englishman in 1480 would think the Northerners were barbarians little better than the Britons he read about in the Classics. 

I agree the Starks are no more legitimate than any other House in Westeros. I wish the text was more self aware of this. You’re saying that as if peoples don’t hold positive views of House Stark. 

It does not burden Ned Stark if the author downplays this aspect and misdirects it with “moral dilemma” over minor things like Stannis using dark magic to kill his brother. Who cares? You just had a peasant hung drawn and quartered for stealing a loaf of bread. You just took half their produce to feed your troops and now their children will starve in winter. It should be front and centre. He avoids tarnishing them with this association with fuedalism. I don’t think he’s being subtle, I think he as an author is avoiding this issue in relation to the Starks. 

The thing is that we don't judge House Stark as a feudalistic entity (or any other House) but we accept that these are all characters that live according to their time and place, we just like the characters because we understand their motives and feel their pain. Also Martin has given The Starks ethics similar to today's ethics, the way the characters act is not wise of their time but it's similar to how a today's human would think (yes, not every Stark, dont come at me about Brandon Stark).

I don't judge other Houses for playing the game in a more dirty way though (you can see that I love House Tyrell), because the game of Power is a Dirty game and you can't play it with your own "clean" ways and act like there will be no problem. The Starks react to Medieval politics in a way that a non-politician reader of today would act but you can't judge The Lannisters for example for fighting for the influence and survival of their House, that's how things work. It is one of the few clever things that Cersei has said but indeed in The Game of Thrones you win ir you die, there is no middle ground (the last part is from the series but it's on point).

 

[Tyrion1991]

8 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

The thing is that we don't judge House Stark as a feudalistic entity (or any other House) but we accept that these are all characters that live according to their time and place, we just like the characters because we understand their motives and feel their pain. Also Martin has given The Starks ethics similar to today's ethics, the way the characters act is not wise of their time but it's similar to how a today's human would think (yes, not every Stark, dont come at me about Brandon Stark).

I don't judge other Houses for playing the game in a more dirty way though (you can see that I love House Tyrell), because the game of Power is a Dirty game and you can't play it with your own "clean" ways and act like there will be no problem. The Starks react to Medieval politics in a way that a non-politician reader of today would act but you can't judge The Lannisters for example for fighting for the influence and survival of their House, that's how things work. It is one of the few clever things that Cersei has said but indeed in The Game of Thrones you win ir you die, there is no middle ground (the last part is from the series but it's on point).

 

 

Because that’s whitewashing the issue of feudalism and it’s not a neutral depiction. If you downplay the inherent evil of the society and say it’s not the system that’s bad but the people at the top; that’s actually a highly contentious view. For example, let’s say you were making a film about the antebellum South and the Confederacy. So you depict a planter family as some quaint heroic lemonade drinking gentlemen who treat their slaves well and are only interested in states rights. Now, that would not be a neutral depiction. A writer could say he’s just focusing on the personalities but he would essentially be saying that the problem isn’t the system but reducing any bad stuff to certain individuals being the problem. Thus implying that anyone getting rid of the system, such as the Union is bad and that it’s all shades of grey. 

From the show we can infer that George is going to criticise Dany for wanting to upend this system of feudalism. That means the Starks being good people is a way of defending feudalisms existence and reducing the issues down to personalities. If the Starks are in charge the system works. Which infers that an individual wanting to change things is ultimately in the wrong.

So you’re saying that I should role play the fictional world view of values which I disagree with and apply moral judgement of things that I do not care about. Oh the shadow baby came out of Mels vagina; it must be evil! All the while being asked to politely ignore the starving peasants as that’s just the world they live in?

[Bernie Mac]

Seems pretty obvious that he is. He knew that going to Storm's End would see his brother die, was confident that his brother would die at sunrise and while both armies were awake and preparing for battle Stannis was the only person fast asleep.

He does not hesitate to wonder how Renly died, does not think Brienne or Cat were responsible like Renly's camp was suggesting. And he uses the same method to kill Penrose.

Is Tywin guilty of the deaths of the murdered Targaryen children? Yes. Is Stannis guilty of the murder of his brother? Yes. It is pretty open and shut. The guy is having trouble sleeping because of his own guilt on the subject.

[Lord Varys]

On 4/1/2020 at 12:07 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

Because that’s whitewashing the issue of feudalism and it’s not a neutral depiction. If you downplay the inherent evil of the society and say it’s not the system that’s bad but the people at the top; that’s actually a highly contentious view. For example, let’s say you were making a film about the antebellum South and the Confederacy. So you depict a planter family as some quaint heroic lemonade drinking gentlemen who treat their slaves well and are only interested in states rights. Now, that would not be a neutral depiction. A writer could say he’s just focusing on the personalities but he would essentially be saying that the problem isn’t the system but reducing any bad stuff to certain individuals being the problem. Thus implying that anyone getting rid of the system, such as the Union is bad and that it’s all shades of grey.

That is a very valid point and I'd say that George really raises and discusses such issues in the stories - it is just that many readers like to view things through the personal lense and want to side with this or that character or house and see them as 'representing' good or ideal people rather than simply people who are stuck in a fictional world and ascribing/trying to live up to the values and ideals that this fictional world holds dear.

Eddard Stark is very good aristocrat. He cares about his people and his family, he does not want to cause war, he tries to prevent it. But he also has certain priorities he cares more about all that - he does not want to murder royal children (getting justice for Mycah wasn't a big priority), he does not want to see his wife suffer for the abduction of Tyrion and makes it his own even although this was an illegal act, and he cannot really bring himself to work with the Lannisters.

Robb is a completely different animal. He wants to emulate the Young Dragon. He is afraid of going to war at this early age but he also wants to do it. He is in no way a responsible lord or ruler by modern standards and this is something we definitely should pick up on. Robb's entire war is a stupid thing to do - not just because he could never win it (there we have Doran Martell as a more ideal ruler as contrast to Robb) but also because of the Others.

On 4/1/2020 at 12:07 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

From the show we can infer that George is going to criticise Dany for wanting to upend this system of feudalism. That means the Starks being good people is a way of defending feudalisms existence and reducing the issues down to personalities. If the Starks are in charge the system works. Which infers that an individual wanting to change things is ultimately in the wrong.

At this point there is no indication that Daenerys will ever try to overthrow feudalism in Westeros. She tries to end slavery in Essos and I'm pretty sure that she will succeed there. And no matter what happens afterwards to her would be pretty much irrelevant - if she accomplishes that she will already be the greatest hero this world has ever seen no matter how many slavers and their kin have to be killed to accomplish that.

I think she should also try to crush feudalism in Westeros, but this isn't something that has crossed her or anyone's mind at this point aside from, perhaps, Aegon V (we have no idea what kind of reforms he wanted to push through had he had dragons) and I don't think George would ever kill her for trying to end feudalism - because that could only be a positive thing in Westeros. We do see the ugly side of that shitty system especially in TSS - and can be pretty sure that a significant part of Egg's reforms was to see to it that it doesn't go well for lords if they act the way Lady Webber did.

We also have rather obvious criticism of kingship in the Quentyn chapters of ADwD where the triarchy system of Volantis is compared to hereditary monarchy. Chances are about zero that such discussion will trigger a system change in Westeros, but it is clear that the intent there is to be critical of monarchy and, of course, also the many little monarchs the lords of Westeros are on their lands.

This has nothing to do with Stannis though. The guy is guilty of murdering his brother and one should lay this ugly deed at his feet. And while Renly is hardly better he is, unfortunately, somewhat better although still not a nice guy. Renly had no intention to murder his brother when he decided to try to usurp the Iron Throne. He only decided to fight and kill Stannis because Stannis forced him to do that.

The problem one should have with Stannis is that he is just repressed freak. He is King Aenys with various complexes preventing him from admitting that all he ever wanted was to be loved by people, especially his older brother Robert - this is best illustrated in ADwD where he is pissed when people mention Robert's feats to him (any person having a normal relationship with his brother would have no problem with that - but Stannis must compete with Robert even in death) and when he actually deludes himself into believing that 'people will send for him' after Joffrey's death - he wants to be offered the crown, he wants to seen as Robert's equal. But he simply isn't. Those are his main issues ... and beneath all that there is repressed ambition, a desire for the crown, for power Stannis doesn't even admit to himself. Instead he walks around and openly states that he doesn't want the throne ... while doing everything he possibly can to seize, using flimsy pretexts (the unproven accusations against Cersei he never dared to actually share with Robert) and very ugly means (foul sorcery) to accomplish his goals. Any person sincerely not wanting the crown would have never declared himself king.

His decision to go north and defend the Realm against the wildlings and Others is commendable, though. That's sets him apart from all the other pretenders in a very positive way. George himself has remarked that this is supposed to be a very positive trait in Stannis.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Seems pretty obvious that he is. He knew that going to Storm's End would see his brother die, was confident that his brother would die at sunrise and while both armies were awake and preparing for battle Stannis was the only person fast asleep.

He does not hesitate to wonder how Renly died, does not think Brienne or Cat were responsible like Renly's camp was suggesting. And he uses the same method to kill Penrose.

Is Tywin guilty of the deaths of the murdered Targaryen children? Yes. Is Stannis guilty of the murder of his brother? Yes. It is pretty open and shut. The guy is having trouble sleeping because of his own guilt on the subject.

Yeah, I'm at times really confused how people cannot really see that. The important things are not what Stannis says - although that gives much away, too - it is what he does. And the entire Storm's End campaign means he went there to kill his brother. He also offered him a means to submit to him, but even that seems to have been only half-sincere. If Stannis had really had issues with killing Renly before he did so (afterwards he feels guilt rather unexpectedly) then it is very odd that he made it not more clear to Renly that he would die if he didn't meet his demands. He could have made a more open magical threat, for instance. Or he could have had sent a shadow assassin first to murder a person close to Renly (some guardsmen or servant) to show what he was capable of to use that as incentive for Renly to back down. Instead, he did his best not to come to an understanding with Renly. He drew him to Storm's End to kill him there.

[Hugorfonics]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 while both armies were awake and preparing for battle Stannis was the only person fast asleep.

I dont know if he was the only one. Jon at Castle Black insisted that in between battles his men sleep, like Jaime was accustomed to sleeping in his saddle. Warriors sleep when they can.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He does not hesitate to wonder how Renly died, does not think Brienne or Cat were responsible like Renly's camp was suggesting.

We dont know that for sure.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

. And he uses the same method to kill Penrose.

Very true.

It still doesnt seem very reasonable to me. First of all, this is young Stannis, did he trust Melisandre in early acok? He knew what she was capable of?

Also, how Stannis killed his brother wasnt like giving a nod to Illyn Payne, it wasnt even hacking a neck like the Prince of Winterfell. Stannis had to sleep with the witch, thats how shadow babies are born. So the consensus around here is Meli told Stannis "fuck me and itll kill your brother" So Stannis brushed his teeth pulled down his pants and fucked Meli while thinking of magicing his baby brother to death? 

Thats almost as weird as Euron warging into the Dusky Woman

[Bernie Mac]

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I dont know if he was the only one.

He was the only commander on each side that was asleep. All of Renly's lords were awake, we see them with Cat and according to Stannis his lords were awake as well

"I was still abed when he died. Your Devan will tell you. He tried to wake me. Dawn was nigh and my lords were waiting, fretting. I should have been ahorse, armored."

And yet straight before a battle, 5k vs 20k, Stannis is sound asleep. He knew there was no battle to be fought, he'd been promised as much by Melisandre and he knew that Renly was being killed as he slept.

For a long time the king did not speak. Then, very softly, he said, "I dream of it sometimes. Of Renly's dying. A green tent, candles, a woman screaming. And blood." Stannis looked down at his hands.

He murdered Renly. Both directly and indirectly he is guilty of it.

"Her flames do not lie. She saw Renly's doom as well. On Dragonstone she saw it, and told Selyse. Lord Velaryon and your friend Salladhor Saan would have had me sail against Joffrey, but Melisandre told me that if I went to Storm's End, I would win the best part of my brother's power, and she was right."

"B-but," Davos stammered, "Lord Renly only came here because you had laid siege to the castle. He was marching toward King's Landing before, against the Lannisters, he would have—"

Stannis shifted in his seat, frowning. "Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches, to his doom . . . and it was well for me he did.

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Jon at Castle Black insisted that in between battles his men sleep, like Jaime was accustomed to sleeping in his saddle. Warriors sleep when they can.

 Yes, but not straight before a planned battle. The men of the Watch were under constant attack, day and night. This is not the case for Stannis.

If he genuinely thought he'd have to have battle he'd be awake like his commanders were awake, like Renly and his commanders were awake.

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

We dont know that for sure.

Odd argument. We know nothing for sure, it is a fantasy novel were anything can be changed at the whim of the author.

But given that he knows exactly how Renly died, that the shadow that killed Renly was the image of Stannis and he asks Melisandre to kill Penrose in the same way we can be reasonably sure that Stannis is aware that Brienne and Cat are not guilty of the murder of Renly.

Also given his sleepless nights over Renly, though none over Robert or Cressen, it can be assumed that his guilt is over his part in his younger brothers' death.

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

It still doesnt seem very reasonable to me. First of all, this is young Stannis, did he trust Melisandre in early acok? He knew what she was capable of?

Yes, he says as much to Davos.

 

[Hugorfonics]

50 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But given that he knows exactly how Renly died, that the shadow that killed Renly was the image of Stannis and he asks Melisandre to kill Penrose in the same way we can be reasonably sure that Stannis is aware that Brienne and Cat are not guilty of the murder of Renly.

Also given his sleepless nights over Renly, though none over Robert or Cressen, it can be assumed that his guilt is over his part in his younger brothers' death.

For sure. Stannis sailed thinking of killing Renly. Mans guilty, no doubt.

50 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

If he genuinely thought he'd have to have battle he'd be awake like his commanders were awake, like Renly and his commanders were awake.

That's what makes this so hysterical. Stannis actually was doing what Renly was doing. Religion in bed. 

Quote

"Renly gave me the van. Otherwise it would have been me helping him don his armor. He often entrusted that task to me. We had . . . we had prayed together that night. I left him with her.

I just have a hard time getting behind this kinky fratricide shit

Quote

Ser Cortnay will be dead within the day. Melisandre has seen it in the flames of the future. His death and the manner of it. He will not die in knightly combat, needless to say." Stannis held out his cup, and Devan filled it again from the flagon. "Her flames do not lie. She saw Renly's doom as well. On Dragonstone she saw it, and told Selyse.

Meli saw the manner of Penroses death, but do you really think she went into the specifics with Stannis and Selyse? I mean damn girl, try to hold down your mans. I mean I know shes devout but, like, is Patchface really giving her enough? Lol

50 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes, he says as much to Davos.

After Penrose (eta)

Quote

The Iron Throne is mine by rights, but how am I to take it? There are four kings in the realm, and three of them have more men and more gold than I do. I have ships . . . and I have her. The red woman. Half my knights are afraid even to say her name, did you know? If she can do nothing else, a sorceress who can inspire such dread in grown men is not to be despised. A frightened man is a beaten man. And perhaps she can do more. I mean to find out.

"When I was a lad I found an injured goshawk and nursed her back to health. Proudwing, I named her. She would perch on my shoulder and flutter from room to room after me and take food from my hand, but she would not soar. Time and again I would take her hawking, but she never flew higher than the treetops. Robert called her Weakwing. He owned a gyrfalcon named Thunderclap who never missed her strike. One day our great-uncle Ser Harbert told me to try a different bird. I was making a fool of myself with Proudwing, he said, and he was right." Stannis Baratheon turned away from the window, and the ghosts who moved upon the southern sea. "The Seven have never brought me so much as a sparrow. It is time I tried another hawk, Davos. A red hawk."

 

[frenin]

On 4/1/2020 at 1:25 AM, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Because it’s better than the alternative which is bastard Fuedalism. Besides, even the Middles Ages was far more advanced and beyond the world depicted in Westeros. Magna Carta, Parliament, Common Law. An Englishman in 1480 would think the Northerners were barbarians little better than the Britons he read about in the Classics. 

I agree the Starks are no more legitimate than any other House in Westeros. I wish the text was more self aware of this. You’re saying that as if peoples don’t hold positive views of House Stark. 

It does not burden Ned Stark if the author downplays this aspect and misdirects it with “moral dilemma” over minor things like Stannis using dark magic to kill his brother. Who cares? You just had a peasant hung drawn and quartered for stealing a loaf of bread. You just took half their produce to feed your troops and now their children will starve in winter. It should be front and centre. He avoids tarnishing them with this association with fuedalism. I don’t think he’s being subtle, I think he as an author is avoiding this issue in relation to the Starks. 

This again?? Why are you bringing your Stark hate/love to every thread. It's interesting to discuss with you, even when you corner  yourself, but why don't start a brand  new thread about the Starks instead of hijacking every post other one.

[TeethGrinder]

Yes.

It's also exactly what the traitor deserved. Renly is one of the more irredeemable characters in the books. His vanity destroyed his family and much more beyond.

[TeethGrinder]

On 4/2/2020 at 10:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

Renly had no intention to murder his brother when he decided to try to usurp the Iron Throne. He only decided to fight and kill Stannis because Stannis forced him to do that.

Nonsense.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Yes.

It's also exactly what the traitor deserved. Renly is one of the more irredeemable characters in the books. His vanity destroyed his family and much more beyond.

Wait, what? Stannis decided to abandon his duty to his brother, and not ignore him that his life was in danger. As a consequence his brother died. He was then told that going to Storm's End would see his younger brother dead, he could not get their fast enough. Later he tries to murder Robert's only acknowledged true son and murders his wife's uncle for coming up with an idea that may have saved Stannis' family.

Thanks to Stannis' quest to be King he has lost two brothers, multiple in-laws, his home and his daughter's life may be jeopardy should the Wildlings get their way, or Melisandre hers.

Alternatively he could have warned Robert or joined Renly's 100k army. The guy who plays with the magic sword is the one whose vanity destroyed his family.

 

2 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Nonsense.

Renly offered to make Stannis the most powerful Lord in the realm, with both the Lordship of Dragonstone and the Storm's End for Stannis' tiny 5k army.

One of the most generous offers anyone was ever likely to get to have Stannis put away his pride. He refused a great offer and then threatened to destroy Renly at dawn.

[TeethGrinder]

53 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Wait, what? Stannis decided to abandon his duty to his brother, and not ignore him that his life was in danger. As a consequence his brother died. He was then told that going to Storm's End would see his younger brother dead, he could not get their fast enough. Later he tries to murder Robert's only acknowledged true son and murders his wife's uncle for coming up with an idea that may have saved Stannis' family.

Thanks to Stannis' quest to be King he has lost two brothers, multiple in-laws, his home and his daughter's life may be jeopardy should the Wildlings get their way, or Melisandre hers.

Alternatively he could have warned Robert or joined Renly's 100k army. The guy who plays with the magic sword is the one whose vanity destroyed his family.

 

Renly offered to make Stannis the most powerful Lord in the realm, with both the Lordship of Dragonstone and the Storm's End for Stannis' tiny 5k army.

One of the most generous offers anyone was ever likely to get to have Stannis put away his pride. He refused a great offer and then threatened to destroy Renly at dawn.

Robert probably wouldn't have believed Stannis had he told him as it would have looked opportunistic. Convenient that the guy who stands to gain the most finds out. He did not know Robert was going to be killed either andI don't know how you think Stannis would have saved him. Jon and Ned both ended up dead before they could do anything and were both far more credible to Robert than Stannis. He would have been immediately been ridiculed by those around him who we know opposed him. 

Renly had made a nonsensical claim to Stannis' rightful throne. Conflict was inevitable and one was going to die and the justification for their claims are not comparable. Renly knew before declaring himself king that Stannis would never accept it. Even without the incest. The entire realm knew he wouldn't accept it. Stannis was not a man you pass over without reason. Would be the equivalent to Gerion Lannister claiming lordship of Casterly Rock because he's popular. 

He guaranteed conflict with his brother. Had he done the rightful thing and accepted Stannis' offer to be heir they probably take King's Landing and secure Stark support as well under a united banner and a united cause. It was a totally needless division based on nothing but the vanity of one man. To attribute Stannis' claim to vanity sort of exposes your own biases. Ridiculous doesn't do it justice. 

Laughable to blame Stannis for Robert,. Laughable. He killed Renly for committing treason. As any king would and he ultimately didn't murder Edric although I'm not defending him for that. He deserves criticism for that as well as the fact that he will burn Shireen in the future. This is less a defence of Stannis is it is an indictment on the immature little shit who divided both the family and the realm at the critical point without cause. He's a disgrace.

Renly is mocked even by his previous supporters for his claim - As Olenna put it "He knew how to dress and he knew how to smile and he knew how to bathe, and somehow he got the notion that this made him fit to be king".

It was nonsense from start to finish. A man playing at war when others were meaning to fight one. It was a game to him. He deserved to burn. 

 

[frenin]

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Robert probably wouldn't have believed Stannis had he told him as it would have looked opportunistic. 

That's was what Stannis tells himself, not the truth.

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Convenient that the guy who stands to gain the most finds out.

When people bring this up I always wonder if they think that Robert was, old af to father more children, unable to remarry, unable to legit any of his infinite number of bastards. Robert was fertile , very fertile. Stannis is just rationalizing his treason.

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

He did not know Robert was going to be killed either andI don't know how you think Stannis would have saved him.

He very much did since he prepares himself for it. He steals Robert's fleet and he starts hiring  sellswords for the eventual shitstorm that would happen once Robert is dead.

And ofc that Stannis would've saved him, Robert gets to be killed and never gets to properly rule his succession because he dies thinking Joffrey his son.

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Jon and Ned both ended up dead before they could do anything and were both far more credible to Robert than Stannis. He would have been immediately been ridiculed by those around him who we know opposed him. 

And both Jon and Ned would've appreciated Stannis's help. Ned himself summons Stannis and wants him to tell him what is going on... But Stannis just waits.

 

Why would he had been ridiculed?? He had the means to talk to both his brothers privately, he never did. He had the means to announce the truth publicly, he never did. Robert disliked his family, had he ever had a reason to dump them and replace them he would not have hesitated.

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Renly had made a nonsensical claim to Stannis' rightful throne. Conflict was inevitable and one was going to die and the justification for their claims are not comparable. Renly knew before declaring himself king that Stannis would never accept it. Even without the incest. The entire realm knew he wouldn't accept it. Stannis was not a man you pass over without reason. Would be the equivalent to Gerion Lannister claiming lordship of Casterly Rock because he's popular. 

Sure that Stannis would never accept Renly's quest to the Throne, but Renly could win, Stannis would never, nor would he be ever loved enough to inspire loyalty. 

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

He guaranteed conflict with his brother. Had he done the rightful thing and accepted Stannis' offer to be heir they probably take King's Landing and secure Stark support as well under a united banner and a united cause. It was a totally needless division based on nothing but the vanity of one man. To attribute Stannis' claim to vanity sort of exposes your own biases. Ridiculous doesn't do it justice. 

Why would he?? Stannis was as usurper as him in his eyes. Why would he bent the knee  to his brother?? And what happen with the Tyrells?? Robb had already accepted the crown and was not eager to lose it either. Stannis never should bend, it's always the other who must.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

As any king would and he ultimately didn't murder Edric although I'm not defending him for that. He deserves criticism for that as well as the fact that he will burn Shireen in the future. This is less a defence of Stannis is it is an indictment on the immature little shit who divided both the family and the realm at the critical point without cause. He's a disgrace.

He didn't burn Edric for the same reason he did not kill Cersei, he couldn't.

Who divided the Realm?? Stannis did, he let Robert die, he waited until Robb and Renly were crowned and he killed his own brother, thus granting that the Tyrells went over Tywin, Stannis sacrificed everything on his mad quest and still failed spectacularly. The Lannisters and the Targs have A LOT to thank to Stannis.  Them defeating and ousting, if not outright destroying, the Baratheons would've been impossible without Stannis's astonishing inside job.

Stannis destroyed House Baratheon, not Renly, not Robert.

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Renly is mocked even by his previous supporters for his claim - As Olenna put it "He knew how to dress and he knew how to smile and he knew how to bathe, and somehow he got the notion that this made him fit to be king".

Olenna never supported Renly in the first place. He is not mocked by any of his previous supporters. Only by those that were already predisposed against him.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

It was nonsense from start to finish. A man playing at war when others were meaning to fight one. It was a game to him. He deserved to burn. 

Didn't know that strategy was the same as play at war. Saying that Renly destroyed his family is stupid. Stannis killed Renly to fail at the end, is that Renly's fault too?? That he put useless  Imry Florent at charge  of his fleet??  That he radicalized the Reach lords with his actions??  Stannis wanted it all, more likely than not because Robert had it all, sohe could not be less. He ended losing it all. That's on him, he was defeated, not Renly not Robert. Storm's End is being lost under him, not Renly not Robert. 

[Bernie Mac]

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Robert probably wouldn't have believed Stannis had he told him as it would have looked opportunistic.

Probably is not a great argument for a dereliction of duty. Stannis did not even bother to try. He screwed his King, a King he has personal grievances with.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

Convenient that the guy who stands to gain the most finds out.

He only gains the most if Robert can not act, remarry, make Edric is heir etc.

By not acting Stannis ensured that he would be the next rightful King.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

He did not know Robert was going to be killed either

He was convinced that the Lannisters had just murdered the Hand of the King. Why would Robert's life not be in danger from the same people?

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

andI don't know how you think Stannis would have saved him.

By warning him. Robert does not even have to believe him, but making his accusations public limits the chances of Robert being murdered by the Lannisters as they would look guilty with motive.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

Jon and Ned both ended up dead before they could do anything and were both far more credible to Robert than Stannis. He would have been immediately been ridiculed by those around him who we know opposed him. 

I really don't understand this argument. Are you really saying that Stannis being ridiculed is a good enough reason for him to commit treason and let the King die?

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Renly had made a nonsensical claim to Stannis' rightful throne.

His claim was pretty much the same one as Robert's. He was in the line of succession, was in danger from the current crown and had the support to become King.

Renly's claim, all things considered, make considerable more sense than Stannis'

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

Conflict was inevitable and one was going to die and the justification for their claims are not comparable. Renly knew before declaring himself king that Stannis would never accept it.

No, he did not. If he genuinely knew that he'd not parley with him. His 20k could have wiped out Stannis' 5k. He's not have generously offered him the Stormlands to quell his brothers vanity.

Renly thought his brother would see sense, we know this through both his offers to Stannis and his claims to Cat that his brother would join him.  Renly is not at fault for thinking his brother would be sensible, he is not to know that his brother had fallen thrall to a foreign priestess who promised him glory.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

Even without the incest. The entire realm knew he wouldn't accept it.

Hyperbolic statement.

The guy has 5k and can't win. Some definitely thought Stannis would see sense. The man he appointed Hand, his uncle in-law, thought the same and Stannis burned him alive.

Some might think he'd never accept, others would think he would given what he was being offered and what little support he had himself.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Stannis was not a man you pass over without reason. Would be the equivalent to Gerion Lannister claiming lordship of Casterly Rock because he's popular. 

eh? Really dumb comparison.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

He guaranteed conflict with his brother. Had he done the rightful thing and accepted Stannis' offer to be heir they probably take King's Landing and secure Stark support as well under a united banner and a united cause.

Had Stannis done the rightful thing, like he did with Robert, and supported his brother, the most powerful usurper, there would be a Baratheon on the throne and the realm at peace. Stannis would be the most powerful Lord in the realm.

Your argument cuts both ways. Both brothers are guilty of this.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

It was a totally needless division based on nothing but the vanity of one man. To attribute Stannis' claim to vanity sort of exposes your own biases. Ridiculous doesn't do it justice. 

Dude, I have no idea what you are even trying to say here. Dial down the rhetoric and try to make sense.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Laughable to blame Stannis for Robert,. Laughable.

Not really.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

He killed Renly for committing treason.

No, he killed him for his army. Pure and simple. Stannis' knew that he did not stand a chance to win the throne without his brother's supporters.

Stannis valued wearing the shiny crown over his brother's lives.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

 

As any king would and he ultimately didn't murder Edric

He would have had Davos not taken the option away from him.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Renly is mocked even by his previous supporters for his claim - As Olenna put it "He knew how to dress and he knew how to smile and he knew how to bathe, and somehow he got the notion that this made him fit to be king".

eh? Olenna never supported him, she says as much from the conversation you are quoting. Olenna was never one of Renly's supporters, she argued against it.

6 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

It was nonsense from start to finish. A man playing at war when others were meaning to fight one. It was a game to him. He deserved to burn.

It was not a game to him. His life was in danger, he warned Ned that Cersei would end them and then Cersei imprisoned Ned and eventually he was executed.

Renly reasons were a mixture. Ambition played a part, but so do did fear and pragmatism. But lets not forget, it took magic to return to Westeros for Renly to be defeated. He's be King otherwise and the realm at peace and in a far better position to defend against the Others. Stannis 'vanity to be King not only cost his brother's their lives but thousands and thousands of men, women and children of Westeros.

[three-eyed monkey]

Is Stannis guilty of killing Renly? I would say yes, ultimately.

Stannis did not go to Storm's End to kill Renly, he went because Mel told him he would win Renly's host there, and she mistook the Battle of the Blackwater for an alternative future where Renly, as opposed to Tywin and Renly's Ghost, would defeat Stannis. Stannis planned on attacking King's Landing but once Mel told him of her vision he had to reconsider. Stannis believes the Red Woman has power, though at that point she had not yet had an opportunity to prove it. I'm sure Stannis would have weighed it in typical fashion, and he almost certainly would have been skeptical, but the end result was that he accepted her counsel and sailed to Storm's End, rather than risk her alternative future becoming a reality.

If Stannis held any hope that Renly would bend the knee, it quickly evaporated at the peach parley. Stannis gave his brother an ultimatum, bend the knee by dawn or else it's battle. From a military perspective it looks an impossible battle to win, even by Stannis's standards. He must have known that, yet before the sun rose the next day his camp was preparing to fight, so clearly Stannis was all-in on Mel's vision, he had pushed too many chips onto the table at that stage. He could not withdraw without losing face and had no choice but to trust Mel's vision and hope that the Lord of Light would make something happen for him, but I don't think he knew what that might be.

The parley presented Mel with the opportunity she was waiting for. She knew the magic, she also knew Stannis. She only needed to unleash his shadow and the rest would take care of itself. That's the important part, it's not just a shadow assassin it is shadow Stannis.

The shadow is the deepest and darkest parts of Stannis, the parts of him that even he fails to identify. It's the Id as opposed to the Ego, if we want to think of it in terms of psychology. Outwardly, Stannis portrays himself as the rightful king, a just man, laws made from iron not pudding, etc. He also has an inner side that we don't often get to see behind the facade, the Stannis who swaps Mance and Rattleshirt before he burns the king-beyond-the-wall to satisfy the law, but beyond that there are those deep, dark parts of him that even he dares not visit. That is where the shadow resides until called forth by Mel's spell. She did not create the shadow and I doubt she has much control over it, she just brings it into the world, and the shadow does the rest.

Stannis remained connected to the shadow through his dream, but I'd imagine his ability to control the shadow was no different than his ability to control any of his dreams. However, it's not that simple. The shadow is Stannis, it's his dark-side. It knows his secrets and his desires. They inform the shadow and the shadow serves only Stannis, there is no one else. The only difference between Stannis and his shadow is that his shadow will do the things that Stannis cannot.

When Stannis woke and heard the reports then he simply had to put two and two together. He dreamed of killing Renly in his tent, woke to find Renly was killed in his tent, Mel is a sorceress, the conclusion is that Mel's sorcery somehow allowed Stannis to actually kill Renly through a dream. But remember, the shadow is the part of him that even he fails to identify. When someone is confronted by their shadow the first line of defense is denial, and that's what Stannis chooses. He insists his hands are clean and his, well, clean hands prove it. It couldn't have been him, he was asleep as Devan will testify, Renly annoyed him but he is no kinslayer, that's not who he is. Besides, Renly chose his fate when he usurped the law, etc.

The point of the whole thing is that the shadow exists in everyone, deep down, the Heart of Darkness as Joseph Conrad called it, and horrors like war bring it forth. Stannis does not identify the monster in him, he does not recognize what he is capable of. This is an important part of his arc because the day will come when the kinslaying shadow within can no longer be denied, it will be clear for all the world to see, and that is what will destroy him.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, TeethGrinder said:

Nonsense.

Reread the book. Renly even thought Stannis would be on his side and stand with him against the Lannisters. It was Catelyn who reminded Renly that Stannis had a better claim - and Renly only realized his brother had become a problem for him when the man was besieging Storm's End.

Renly makes it perfectly clear that he doesn't want to kill Stannis ... but that he is going to do it if the moron forces him to fight a battle against him.

Overall, Stannis is just a repressed hypocrite. He did let his brother and king and die along with Eddard Stark. He could have saved them both with so much as a single letter. But the jealous prick chose to not answer any of Ned's letters nor did he decide to return to court and reveal the truth.

He was a traitor to his brother and king. First, by not telling Robert about Cersei's treason, second because he did not tell Robert about his suspicion that Jon Arryn had been murdered, third because he did not warn Robert that Cersei might kill him, too, if he ever found out what Jon and he were investigating, and fourth because he decided to try to usurp his brother's throne without having so much as a single shred of evidence that Robert's children weren't his. The man was willing to murder his sister-in-law and nephews and niece over 'a crime' he couldn't even prove.

That is disgusting, especially if it plunges an entire kingdom into war.

Renly isn't much better, of course, but he is less hypocritical about his actions. If anyone had pulled 'a Stannis' on Stannis himself (i.e. if anyone at his court had 'informed' him the way about a monstrous crime at his court the way he, Stannis, 'informed' Robert about Cersei's alleged crime), Stannis would have executed that person as the traitor that they were - but for himself different standards apply. Stannis, in his mind, did not betray Robert.

One can even see this double standard at work with Alester Florent. The man was his Hand, he had a right to speak with the King's Voice while said king was whining in his depression and only receiving/hanging out with his red whore instead of caring what happened at his court. Alester tried to make a peace with Stannis' enemies, tried to save his life, the lives of his family, and their titles and lordships. It is okay that Stannis condemned that deal once he learned of it - he didn't approve of it and wasn't bound to go through with it. It would also be okay to dismiss Lord Alester after that since it really revealed that they had very different strategies how to proceed after the Blackwater. But imprisoning and burning the man was just wrong on every level.

Stannis really only goes to Storm's End to murder Renly and steal his army. That is the entire point of that plan. He regrets the murder after the fact, but that doesn't change his guilt.

Even Stannis' one good deed - going to the Wall - goes ultimately back to his desire to take the Iron Throne. He wants to defend the Realm and its people and win the throne this way by winning the loyalty and gratitude of his people. He does the right thing ... but not for the right reason. The right reason would be to help the NW simply because they needed help - not because this could be used as a propaganda coup to show the Realm that he, Stannis, was the only king who cared.

[Tyrion1991]

On 4/2/2020 at 10:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is a very valid point and I'd say that George really raises and discusses such issues in the stories - it is just that many readers like to view things through the personal lense and want to side with this or that character or house and see them as 'representing' good or ideal people rather than simply people who are stuck in a fictional world and ascribing/trying to live up to the values and ideals that this fictional world holds dear.

Eddard Stark is very good aristocrat. He cares about his people and his family, he does not want to cause war, he tries to prevent it. But he also has certain priorities he cares more about all that - he does not want to murder royal children (getting justice for Mycah wasn't a big priority), he does not want to see his wife suffer for the abduction of Tyrion and makes it his own even although this was an illegal act, and he cannot really bring himself to work with the Lannisters.

Robb is a completely different animal. He wants to emulate the Young Dragon. He is afraid of going to war at this early age but he also wants to do it. He is in no way a responsible lord or ruler by modern standards and this is something we definitely should pick up on. Robb's entire war is a stupid thing to do - not just because he could never win it (there we have Doran Martell as a more ideal ruler as contrast to Robb) but also because of the Others.

At this point there is no indication that Daenerys will ever try to overthrow feudalism in Westeros. She tries to end slavery in Essos and I'm pretty sure that she will succeed there. And no matter what happens afterwards to her would be pretty much irrelevant - if she accomplishes that she will already be the greatest hero this world has ever seen no matter how many slavers and their kin have to be killed to accomplish that.

I think she should also try to crush feudalism in Westeros, but this isn't something that has crossed her or anyone's mind at this point aside from, perhaps, Aegon V (we have no idea what kind of reforms he wanted to push through had he had dragons) and I don't think George would ever kill her for trying to end feudalism - because that could only be a positive thing in Westeros. We do see the ugly side of that shitty system especially in TSS - and can be pretty sure that a significant part of Egg's reforms was to see to it that it doesn't go well for lords if they act the way Lady Webber did.

We also have rather obvious criticism of kingship in the Quentyn chapters of ADwD where the triarchy system of Volantis is compared to hereditary monarchy. Chances are about zero that such discussion will trigger a system change in Westeros, but it is clear that the intent there is to be critical of monarchy and, of course, also the many little monarchs the lords of Westeros are on their lands.

This has nothing to do with Stannis though. The guy is guilty of murdering his brother and one should lay this ugly deed at his feet. And while Renly is hardly better he is, unfortunately, somewhat better although still not a nice guy. Renly had no intention to murder his brother when he decided to try to usurp the Iron Throne. He only decided to fight and kill Stannis because Stannis forced him to do that.

The problem one should have with Stannis is that he is just repressed freak. He is King Aenys with various complexes preventing him from admitting that all he ever wanted was to be loved by people, especially his older brother Robert - this is best illustrated in ADwD where he is pissed when people mention Robert's feats to him (any person having a normal relationship with his brother would have no problem with that - but Stannis must compete with Robert even in death) and when he actually deludes himself into believing that 'people will send for him' after Joffrey's death - he wants to be offered the crown, he wants to seen as Robert's equal. But he simply isn't. Those are his main issues ... and beneath all that there is repressed ambition, a desire for the crown, for power Stannis doesn't even admit to himself. Instead he walks around and openly states that he doesn't want the throne ... while doing everything he possibly can to seize, using flimsy pretexts (the unproven accusations against Cersei he never dared to actually share with Robert) and very ugly means (foul sorcery) to accomplish his goals. Any person sincerely not wanting the crown would have never declared himself king.

His decision to go north and defend the Realm against the wildlings and Others is commendable, though. That's sets him apart from all the other pretenders in a very positive way. George himself has remarked that this is supposed to be a very positive trait in Stannis.

 

Those are critiques of the text. I don’t believe George is subtly critiquing the Starks. Why would he be so on the nose with so many other characters and moral discussions such as Mirri vs Dany, Tyrion vs Tywin etc etc. With Rob he is far more focused on the notion marrying Jeyne ruins everything; which is another restatement of the love vs duty. If he had kept it in his pants then he wouldn’t be in this problem. The model King would have refrained from such vice and viewed things more pragmatically. Why would he focus so much on that if the whole enterprise and war itself were being critiqued? That whole argument depends on his ability to win the war in the first place.

Dany is the one of the few characters outside of the feudal system and whose story has been set either in a world inspired by beuracratic Classical Greece/Rome or the Noble Savage Dothraki. She also tends to take exception to people doing bad things to the common folk with whom she relates because she’s been a slave and been on the streets herself. It isn’t discussed that she might oppose fuedalism because she isn’t there yet and that more a pacing issue. We don’t see a lot of discussion on the politics of Westeros either yet we know that’s going to be important. So I think it’s reasonable given the themes of Danys story that it will involve some element of this.

Kingship is not the same thing as feudalism. I think if George follows the show and makes this a criticism of the idea of inherited monarchy vs an elective monarchy being the problem then he’s completely misunderstood whatever books inspired him. The issue is feudalism and the lack of a centralised state. Then you can have a Parliament, rule of law, trade and all the other wheels of modernity. Having a bunch of over mighty subject with their private armies is, quite obviously, a major reason for all the civil wars and problems of the series. Not that you can’t elect House Stark to be in charge.

It’s quite relevant. What you’re saying is that this unspeakable crime is so worthy of discussion. But, hundreds of peasants being hanged, beheaded, branded, quartered, sent to the near Gulag on the wall and starved to death; is just window dressing to the story. No, these are two warlords. You’re buying into the romanticism of the nobility and not seeing them as a bunch of mafia bosses disputing who should get the protection money. They’re all criminals. Even in the Godfather his brother was in his power and wasn’t in control of an army threatening to kill him. 

Again you’re assuming that holding land and being an aristocrat is a passive act. Whilst seeking to be King shows negative traits of ambition, cruelty and a desire for power. But just the act of maintaining your Lordship requires fear, terror and violence.; especially the peasants which are kept in a subservient position. If you walked into Winterfell or Casterly Rock you should be finding the corpses of “criminals” out on public display. That’s what this society is. Why place such heavy judgement on wanting to be the Head Don when you’re already a criminal? Why place any value on personal failings? Never mind that such a system prevents any steps towards modernity and means Westeros should fall behind the rest of the world.