How Culpable is Stannis in the Death of Renly?

[Craving Peaches]

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

Now you're trying to exonerate Renly for the same thing you wish to convict Stannis for doing.

I wasn't trying to exonerate him, I was trying to explain why he might not be feeling such brotherly affection after Stannis threatened him at a peace meeting.

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

The hard truth you should admit is that the only difference between Renly and Stannis' feelings for one another is that Stannis succeeded. Both brothers were fully set to kill each other to get what they wanted.

The difference is that if Stannis were to die it would be at the hands of Renly's troops, not by his own hand or by some black magic sorcery creation, so the 'degree' of kinslaying would arguably be less. But yes, Renly was prepared to see Stannis die after Stannis attacked his home and threatened him.

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

(and people talk a lot of smack on Stannis for having brother issues, but Renly is equally in need of therapy in that regard).

Almost everyone is in need of some therapy. But aside from brotherly issues Renly seems a bit more mentally healthy than Stannis. Though his love of enjoying life is probably a response to the starvation he endured as a child, which he probably does need to work through. Stannis doesn't seem to be able to enjoy anything which is a big issue.

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

Where was Renly noted to be a moderate? Genuine question, I don't recall that, unless you're assuming it because of his trim figure. But he was only 21. Robert and Aegon IV were both trim when they were young too. And Renly had expensive tastes.

People have already provided it but it's this quote here from one of the Catelyn ACoK chapters.

Quote

The king enjoyed his food and drink, that was plain to see, yet he seemed neither glutton nor drunkard. He laughed often, and well, and spoke amiably to highborn lords and lowly serving wenches alike.

So from what I can tell, it looks like Renly enjoys himself, but not to excess. So moderately.

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

Renly never tried fighting the corruption like Stannis did

We don't know that. He threatens to have Slynt replaced, the issue is that Robert wants to keep him there. You can't go on an anti-corruption crusade if the king wants to keep all the corrupt figures in place.

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

outside of Brienne and Loras, nobody has much good to say about him, not even Olenna Tyrell

Olenna barely has anything good to say about anyone, especially men, who she seems to think are idiots. The only exception seems to be her grandson, Willas.

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

By that logic, Stannis shouldn't have fought with Robert during his rebellion

There was ample proof that Aerys was mad and needed to be deposed and that Rhaegar was following in his father's footsteps by kidnapping highborn maidens. And Robert wasn't initially fighting to be king anyway.

By contrast, Stannis' entire claim to being the rightful king, the reason people should follow him, is because the royal children are illegitimate and so going by the inheritance laws of the kingdom people should follow him. But he has no proof of this to show Renly. Why should Renly be obliged to follow him, based on legal grounds, if he has no proof?

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

You hate and turn against your brother after he literally risked starvation to save your life?

Renly only turns against Stannis after Stannis attacks his home and threatens to kill him during peace negotiations.

[Craving Peaches]

8 hours ago, sifth said:

Still being in such a good mood about killing your brother, doesn't paint Renly in a very positive light, in my book.

Fair enough.

8 hours ago, sifth said:

Had he ordered his generals to try and take Stannis alive, if possible, I would have respected him much more.

He'd likely concluded Stannis would never accept being taken alive. At least that's the sense I got from reading it.

[Craving Peaches]

7 hours ago, PrinceAemondTargaryen said:

Stannis made a legitimate claim, claiming legal right. Renly never claimed any legal right, and was doing it purely out of lust for the throne. 

Stannis had no proof of his claim. So why should Renly follow him?

Also, twice before Renly had plans that did not involve him gaining the throne or any more power, it was only when these plans became impossible and he was in fear of his life that he claimed the throne.

7 hours ago, PrinceAemondTargaryen said:

Stannis did threaten him, but he tried to make some compromises to avoid having to kill Renly.

Renly also made compromises, arguably better compromises given that Stannis actually gained things he didn't have through this offer while Stannis offered Renly nothing he didn't already have. Given Renly was definitely in the stronger position negotiating his offers were actually quite generous in my view.

[Canon Claude]

9 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The difference is that if Stannis were to die it would be at the hands of Renly's troops, not by his own hand or by some black magic sorcery creation, so the 'degree' of kinslaying would arguably be less. 

Kinslaying is kinslaying. Aemond wasn’t less of a kinslayer just because it was his dragon that killed Lucerys.

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Kinslaying is kinslaying. Aemond wasn’t less of a kinslayer just because it was his dragon that killed Lucerys.

There are degrees of kinslaying though. The Author himself has confirmed it. Not just in how closely related the relatives are, but by how they are killed. From the Wiki Page on 'Kinslaying':

Quote

There are degrees in kinslaying, as in anything else. Fighting a battle in which a brother dies might be frowned upon, but killing him with your own hand would be considered far worse.^[7]

[sifth]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

There are degrees of kinslaying though. The Author himself has confirmed it. Not just in how closely related the relatives are, but by how they are killed.

I'm sorry, but Renly ordering his men to kill his brother is kinslaying, or plans to do it anyway. I agree with you that Renly did offer Stannis generous terms, though over all Cat had the right idea the whole time. They should have put aside their differences, until after the Lannisters were beaten and then call a great council to pick the next king. The fact that Robb, Renly and Stannis all hated the Lannisters, for pretty similar reasons, yet were unable to work together, was always something I found a little silly.

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, sifth said:

I'm sorry, but Renly ordering his men to kill his brother is kinslaying, or plans to do it anyway.

GRRM on kinslaying, with special reference to the Renly-Stannis situation, can be found here.

Renly did not order Stannis killed, as I recall. He did not give orders to take him alive because, as noted right after, he and others did not believe that Stannis would allow himself to be captured.

[Alester Florent]

Ah, another Renly v Stannis thread.

To answer the initial question, Stannis is entirely culpable for the death of Renly. If he didn't know exactly the method that Melisandre was going to use - and "kill him with magic" is sufficient - it's surely certain that he gave the order for Renly to be killed. Not only that but he specifically targetted Storm's End to lure Renly to him so that he could (assuming Renly didn't back down, which was always unlikely) kill him.

In the game of fraternal feeling, Renly looks rather more sympathetic to me. Prior to the attack on Storm's End, Renly had hoped that he could bring Stannis around and that they were natural allies against Joffrey. He hadn't considered attacking Dragonstone. After the attack, he accepts that Stannis probably has to die but intends for him to die an honourable death in battle. Stannis by contrast went straight for his brother's capital with the full intention of killing Renly, which he does in a dishonourable manner. By Westerosi standards, Stannis comes off far worse.

Whether Stannis was justified in killing Renly seems to be the question that won't die. I have had extensive debates in the past which I am disinclined to warm over for this thread, but I'll just say that for my part, I am inclined to forgive Renly for what he did in the aftermath of Robert's death and can see the chain of events and associated reasoning that led to him getting a crown put on his head in Highgarden. I also think Stannis could have played his hand better and if he had trusted Renly a bit more a bit earlier, he could perhaps have brought him around, but by the time he chose to make his play it was far too late.

Obviously if Stannis was going to take the throne, Renly needed to go, so if we take the view that Stannis was the rightful heir and that trumps everything, then he was justified, kind of. But it's still kind of a crappy thing to do to your brother.

[sifth]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

GRRM on kinslaying, with special reference to the Renly-Stannis situation, can be found here.

Renly did not order Stannis killed, as I recall. He did not give orders to take him alive because, as noted right after, he and others did not believe that Stannis would allow himself to be captured.

He made jests about Loras killing Stannis for him and making a gift out his brothers “magical” sword to him. 

[Ran]

58 minutes ago, sifth said:

He made jests about Loras killing Stannis for him and making a gift out his brothers “magical” sword to him. 

No, he said that the commander of the vanguard would likely present it to him. Presumably because he expected Stannis would die before the rest of the host got involved, given the mismatch in sizes, not because Loras was ordered to go kill Stannis.

And when it comes to the actual plan for the battle, this is much more relevant:

Quote

    "Only until first shock," Renly said confidently. "Ser Loras will break them, and after that it will be chaos." Brienne tightened green leather straps and buckled golden buckles. "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."
    "And if he yields?" Lord Tarly asked.
    "Yields?" Lord Rowan laughed. "When Mace Tyrell laid siege to Storm's End, Stannis ate rats rather than open his gates."

It is a foregone conclusion to Renly and Mathis Rowan, and no doubt others (but not Tarly, interestingly, given how similar he otherwise seems to Stannis), that Stannis would sooner die than yield, be captured, or accept defeat. 

[Canon Claude]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

GRRM on kinslaying, with special reference to the Renly-Stannis situation, can be found here.

Renly did not order Stannis killed, as I recall. He did not give orders to take him alive because, as noted right after, he and others did not believe that Stannis would allow himself to be captured.

Since when do people dictate whether or not they will be captured? It wouldn’t have been up to Stannis if Renly’s men forcibly captured him alive. The option was always there. Renly specifically didn’t take it.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Canon Claude said:

Since when do people dictate whether or not they will be captured?

These are soldiers armed for war in the midst of a battle, not guards. If someone keeps fighting and refuses to yield, you can't expect soldiers to just accept serious injury or death in an effort to capture someone unharmed. Renly doesn't expect anyone to die for him just to capture Stannis when Stannis will do everything in his power to not survive a losing battle.

Argilac the Arrogant, Borros Baratheon -- they went out fighting for a reason.

 

[Craving Peaches]

4 hours ago, sifth said:

I'm sorry, but Renly ordering his men to kill his brother is kinslaying, or plans to do it anyway.

I'm not saying it's not, just that it would be a lesser degree of kinslaying if Renly's troops killed Stannis compared to how Stannis did kill Renly.

4 hours ago, sifth said:

They should have put aside their differences, until after the Lannisters were beaten and then call a great council to pick the next king. The fact that Robb, Renly and Stannis all hated the Lannisters, for pretty similar reasons, yet were unable to work together, was always something I found a little silly.

The issue is that Stannis would arguably never accept the decision of a great council and Renly didn't feel the need since he was already in a position of strength. Also how could Robb give up his crown without a massive loss of face? It was a nice idea but I think it was naïve.

What is silly though is that they all didn't come to a temporary agreement to kill the Lannisters first and then settle their differences. I'm sure they all hated the Lannisters more than they hated each other.

[sifth]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

No, he said that the commander of the vanguard would likely present it to him. Presumably because he expected Stannis would die before the rest of the host got involved, given the mismatch in sizes, not because Loras was ordered to go kill Stannis.

And when it comes to the actual plan for the battle, this is much more relevant:

It is a foregone conclusion to Renly and Mathis Rowan, and no doubt others (but not Tarly, interestingly, given how similar he otherwise seems to Stannis), that Stannis would sooner die than yield, be captured, or accept defeat. 

I suppose their is some small bit of humanity from Renly, since he didn't want his brothers body mutilated. Still there were ways to take Stannis alive, without killing him. Robb pulled something similar off, when he captured Jamie.

[Craving Peaches]

4 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Ah, another Renly v Stannis thread.

It was supposed to be a discussion of how 'criminally liable' Stannis was for the murder but...

[sifth]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

It was supposed to be a discussion of how 'criminally liable' Stannis was for the murder but...

The problem is both are complex characters. So it always comes down to this, lol

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, sifth said:

The problem is both are complex characters. So it always comes down to this, lol

I mean it seems to be inevitable. But motive generally has no bearing on whether someone is guilty of murder or not. So how justified Stannis may or may not have been is irrelevant.* Especially with Kinslaying. It seems to be  a 'strict liability' crime. It doesn't matter whether you intended to kill or not, or even if you knew you were related. Just the act of killing a relative is enough.

*If Stannis was legally allowed then it wouldn't be murder, but he would still qualify for kinslaying anyway. But given that it seems to have been done under the truce time and not in battle, I don't think it is legal killing anyway.

[sifth]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I mean it seems to be inevitable. But motive generally has no bearing on whether someone is guilty of murder or not. So how justified Stannis may or may not have been is irrelevant. Especially with Kinslaying. It seems to be  a 'strict liability' crime. It doesn't matter whether you intended to kill or not, or even if you knew you were related. Just the act of killing a relative is enough.

The problem is we're not talking about a real law or even an in universe law. It's more of a in universe superstition if anything. I honestly have no idea if Stannis new that Mel would conjure up a shadow demon to kill Renly or if he was just going along with her flame visions, because he knew she had power. I'll say this much, Stannis clearly does seem to know about Mel's shadow demon the second time it's used or at least that's how I always interpreted the text.

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, sifth said:

The problem is we're not talking about a real law or even an in universe law. It's more of a in universe superstition if anything.

I know, I just thought it was comparable to real world crimes where doing the act alone is sufficient for liability and the prosecution only has to prove that the accused did it, and they don't have to prove that they did it intentionally or were reckless, based on what Ygritte says.

Quote

"Aye," she said, "but the gods hate kinslayers, even when they kill unknowing."

8 minutes ago, sifth said:

I honestly have no idea if Stannis new that Mel would conjure up a shadow demon to kill Renly or if he was just going along with her flame visions, because he knew she had power. I'll say this much, Stannis clearly does seem to know about Mel's shadow demon the second time it's used or at least that's how I always interpreted the text.

I agree, he definitely knows what's going on the second time. It's the first time where I'm not sure. I think he must have realised Renly was going to die based on what he did, but I don't know if he knew about the specifics. Probably not. But I doubt he knew nothing and had no idea that Renly was going to die. That would require him to be incredibly wilfully ignorant, or to let his subordinates run around doing whatever they like unchecked, both of which seem out of character for Stannis.

[sifth]

33 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I know, I just thought it was comparable to real world crimes where doing the act alone is sufficient for liability and the prosecution only has to prove that the accused did it, and they don't have to prove that they did it intentionally or were reckless, based on what Ygritte says.

I agree, he definitely knows what's going on the second time. It's the first time where I'm not sure. I think he must have realised Renly was going to die based on what he did, but I don't know if he knew about the specifics. Probably not. But I doubt he knew nothing and had no idea that Renly was going to die. That would require him to be incredibly wilfully ignorant, or to let his subordinates run around doing whatever they like unchecked, both of which seem out of character for Stannis.

I get the feeling Mel needs to meet with the person first, before she can use her shadow demon on them. I noticed that both times, the creature is used, it's the night after a parley. I get the feeling the meeting with Renly was just a cover for Mel's trump card. Stannis does mention that the parley with Renly was Mel's idea in the first place.