Rethinking Stannis

[Daemrion]

The moral problem is that she can and will trick people again, what happens when the next trickee is not so morally repugnant as slaver lords? What happens if she decides to trick someone like Quentyn or plump little innocent Tommen?

And the fact that entering into a bargain with no intention of fulfilling your end in itself is morally repugnant.

Yes, I agree, it was a smart move on her part, but it does raise a moral problem.

[Elfqueen]

I find myself thinking, for some reason, of the game RISK.

I spent way too much time playing it in college, which is why I'm not a doctor. OK, beer was involved in that too, but moving right along, while I was never all that good a player myself, I played with some good players, and I noticed that some of those who won consistently had a very conservative, 'come from behind' style. They'd hold one continent, consistently get the extra men, while the flashier players went head to head and eliminated each other. I once tried that style myself in a game with 9 players; I bided my time--I think I held something pathetic like Australia--till it was down to four, things started moving my way and I wiped two guys off the board in short order, then battled it out at the last with a guy who was the best player I ever saw. He didn't take too long to finish me off, but I felt better than if I'd won against a less skilled player. [Edit to say, in the interest of full disclosure, he and I had never played before and I probably only lasted as long as I did because he underestimated me because I was a grrrl. When I showed up at the weekly game they thought I'd fetch beer and chips and look purty, when I said I wanted to play it was like "Aw isn't that cute, she wants to play!" This was 30 years ago.]

Anyway, seems to me Stannis is holding something that nobody else wants (the Wall and the Gift), which can turn into an advantage if other contenders sufficiently bloody each other and if he's consolidated that small power base. If the Northmen and the Ironborn exhaust each other north of the neck, the Tyrells and Lannisters go at it over the Marge/Cersei fracas, the Blackfish rallies the Riverlands (and maybe even the Vale) to take Riverrun back from Ser Emmon who has a big "L" for "Loser" written on his forehead, or at least isolate him...and Dorne's a powderkeg...if Stannis just settles his wildlings, strengthens the Wall, and scoops up the Northmen who have had a bellyfull of Boltons...

As a favorite saying, also from my college days, goes...

"There is nothing less important than the score at half-time."

out!

Then late lord Frey would be king ..Under these same rules and game plays< cringe>

[Jon Targaryen]

They were slavers, they ate dogs, they mutilated their Unsullied, and were in general just terrible people. This was so we wouldn't be repelled by Dany essentially stealing the Unsullied. That's what she did.

[Grumpygoat]

And the fact that entering into a bargain with no intention of fulfilling your end in itself is morally repugnant.

Yes, I agree, it was a smart move on her part, but it does raise a moral problem.

And it's drastically and vastly less of a problem than throwing little boys out of windows or having men murdered as a matter of faith alone.

The moral problems Dany raises are far less than that of almost all the characters in the series in a similar position of authority and less than many who aren't.

[Daemrion]

And it's drastically and vastly less of a problem than throwing little boys out of windows or having men murdered as a matter of faith alone.

The moral problems Dany raises are far less than that of almost all the characters in the series in a similar position of authority and less than many who aren't.

Ah...but our boy throwers and men murderers aren't going to be the one's who are going to save the known world. Because she's going to be one of the principal heroes she has to basically be dirt free, it's like in the real world, the general populace couldn't care less if Mr Joe Bloggs had an extramarital affair, but when its someone famous or well-known, the media whip up this frenzy and suddenly everyone has something to say about it.

It is the price of living in the spotlight, one has their dirty laundry aired out in the public. That's why Dany has to be "clean" and she is held to a higher standard of morality than other characters.

[Grumpygoat]

Ah... men murderers aren't going to be the one's who are going to save the known world.

Stannis. Who's had people killed and burned simply for protecting their faith. And who at least believes he's meant, in part, to save the known world.

Robb Stark, meanwhile, proved to be of less than stern stuff with Jeyne Westerling and was at least a little tractable when it came to his advisors, which is a greater sin than anything Dany's done, as I see it.

And Robb's just the best of the bunch. Dany stands on equal moral footing, if not better, than anyone else vying for the crown. The only ones who really stand above her in the morality department that may sit the Iron Throne are the likes of Bran and Jon.

Meanwhile, it's simply nonsense that Dany need be "clean." None of Westeros' rulers throughout history have likely had anywhere near the sterling morality she does. She could be an outright scumbag and it wouldn't matter to Westeros at large.

The only viewpoint that really matters isn't that of Westeros, it's of the reader. And the reader can see, in light of the general moral complexity of most of the books cast, that Dany's one of the more upright characters. Not perfect, but no one in the series is. Excluding, at least in the morality department, potentially Bran and Jon. That yet lives, anyway. And has a slivers chance of sitting the throne.

[Daemrion]

...The only viewpoint that really matters isn't that of Westeros, it's of the reader. And the reader can see, in light of the general moral complexity of most of the books cast, that Dany's one of the more upright characters. Not perfect, but no one in the series is. Excluding, at least in the morality department, potentially Bran and Jon. That yet lives, anyway. And has a slivers chance of sitting the throne.

Stannis = soon to be Night King = Evil. (in a nutshell, that is his character progression, he ain't saving the world)

Precisely, because she is the "hero" or one of the heroes of the story, the reader will take extra scrutiny with her actions and omissions. Because she's supposed to be one of the "good guys." She is one of the more upright characters but she is subjected to higher standards of moral behaviour by the reader, so when she does something little that is bad, it looks more bad than it actually is, but then again, since she is supposed to be ruler, a Queen that hatches dragons and saves the world from the Others, should she be held to a higher standard because her actions have far reaching consequences??

[TBBX]

Yeah what Dany did really bothered me there. When I had read it I was like, did she just do what I think she did? After I reread I was like yup, she did...

I even tried to rationalize what she did by saying that she kind of did pay them, but just took the stuff back after she killed them.

She is one of the "good" guys in the books, but with this I just really noticed that it is hard for anyone to stay "clean". Anyone who will probably go for the Iron Throne will have to partake in some necessary evils. As for the people of Westeros, I'm sure they'll forgive her for killing a slaver or probably won't even care as long as she stops the Others.

As for Stannis, I've never really thought of him becoming like the Night King but yeah it could happen. I hope he is either killed before that happens, or Mel's influence stops rubbing off on him.

[cybroleach]

The moral problem is that she can and will trick people again, what happens when the next trickee is not so morally repugnant as slaver lords? What happens if she decides to trick someone like Quentyn or plump little innocent Tommen?

And the fact that entering into a bargain with no intention of fulfilling your end in itself is morally repugnant.

Yes, I agree, it was a smart move on her part, but it does raise a moral problem.

I doubt it's wrong morally to kill slave driver's of their calibur, killing them and ending their rein was a good thing therefore can it be morally wrong.

However what i think you're trying to get at here is that it was without honour certanily Ned or Stannis or Davos or Brenne or anyone with a real sence of the word, would never consider such a thing. And a term I'm fond of quoting is 'man (or woman in this case) who can't honour his word, is a man who can't have honour.' Unless they actually make a pennace or try and rectify it to those they have wronged which in her case is impossible. What she did is comparable to Walder's Red Wedding.

[CelticBrennus]

Stannis. Who's had people killed and burned simply for protecting their faith. And who at least believes he's meant, in part, to save the known world.

No, he killed them because they killed his men.

[Guest Other-in-law]

No, he killed them because they killed his men.

Guncer Sunglass didn't kill any of his men, but Stannis burned him, indirectly, for his faith. Treason was the direct reason, but religious intolerance caused the treason.

[CelticBrennus]

Guncer Sunglass didn't kill any of his men, but Stannis burned him, indirectly, for his faith. Treason was the direct reason, but religious intolerance caused the treason.

It doesn’t matter why, if you raise arms to your liege lord you are a traitor and deserve to die in Westeros.

Besides, Stannis has not forced a single person anywhere to convert. People have of their own free will. Stannis has not destroyed any places of worship that he did not own to begin with.

Sunglass and his suns raised arms against his liege lord because Stannis destroyed a building that STANNIS owned.

I doubt it's wrong morally to kill slave driver's of their calibur, killing them and ending their rein was a good thing therefore can it be morally wrong.

Dany did a good thing in stopping the rule of Astopor’s slavers, but needs to be condemned for the manner of doing it. Men and children who were born free were all massacred and the women were all raped.

That, and the manner she went about doing it was dishonorable.

Likewise, when she forced Yunkai to capitulate, she did a good thing, but accomplished it dishonorably by breaking her word.

Her decision to torture to death 163 Meerenese leading citizens was likewise an act of vengeance, but was not justice. It would only have been just if she had identified the men responsible for ordering the deaths of the 163 children.

[Grumpygoat]

It doesn’t matter why, if you raise arms to your liege lord you are a traitor and deserve to die in Westeros.

It doesn't matter why, if you enslave children and make them murder puppies you are a sicko and deserve to die wherever you are.

Besides, Stannis has not forced a single person anywhere to convert. People have of their own free will. Stannis has not destroyed any places of worship that he did not own to begin with.

He's looking to torch weirwood groves and force the wildlings to convert.

Sunglass and his suns raised arms against his liege lord because Stannis destroyed a building that STANNIS owned.

Dany did a good thing in stopping the rule of Astopor’s slavers, but needs to be condemned for the manner of doing it. Men and children who were born free were all massacred and the women were all raped.

And Stannis did a bad thing in destroying the temple and needs to be condemned for making the situation worse when faithful folk wouldn't abide it.

As for the massacred freemen and raped women, I seem to recall Unsullied doing most of Dany's work. Who massacred the slavemasters only, as I recall, and likely anyone that took arms against them, and obviously raped no one. Most of the vileness that followed is vastly less than anything that would have happened when any other conquering army came in.

That, and the manner she went about doing it was dishonorable.

Likewise, when she forced Yunkai to capitulate, she did a good thing, but accomplished it dishonorably by breaking her word.

One of the things that seems to be sticking in peoples craw about all of this is that it indicates a general tendency that may crop up in Dany.

The same thing can be said of Stannis - burning down weirwoods and septs, then burning people alive when they predictably rebel against the blasphemy. I'll take a good deed with 'dishonorable' methods over a bad deed with no redeeming qualities in it whatsoever.

[CelticBrennus]

It doesn't matter why, if you enslave children and make them murder puppies you are a sicko and deserve to die wherever you are.

Well of course. Is anyone disputing that? I mean, it might have been nice if Dany took the steps to identify and execute only the slaveholders without an orgy of looting and violence.

He's looking to torch weirwood groves and force the wildlings to convert.

And as soon as he does it you will have a point.

And Stannis did a bad thing in destroying the temple and needs to be condemned for making the situation worse when faithful folk wouldn't abide it.

Why is it a bad thing? He owns the temple. It is in his castle, and he is free to do whatever he likes with it. If some faithful dont like it, thats their problem.

As for the massacred freemen and raped women, I seem to recall Unsullied doing most of Dany's work. Who massacred the slavemasters only, as I recall, and likely anyone that took arms against them, and obviously raped no one. Most of the vileness that followed is vastly less than anything that would have happened when any other conquering army came in.

As I recall (I may be incorrect), she ordered them to kill everyone with a tokar on. A tokar was worn by freeborn citizens of Astopor, not simply slaveholders. As for the rest of your point, I am sure the newly freed slaves were nothing but kind and polite to their former owners.

One good instance of what happens when a city is sacked is the Rape of Nanking. Its modern enough you can get a really good idea of what happens.

[cybroleach]

The same thing can be said of Stannis - burning down weirwoods and septs, then burning people alive when they predictably rebel against the blasphemy. I'll take a good deed with 'dishonorable' methods over a bad deed with no redeeming qualities in it whatsoever.

Stannis action:

Honestly how can you equate burning ones own property as evil? Guncer was out of line he's got his own sept back at Sweetport Sound where he can pray at he wasn't told he couldn't worship anymore. Attacking king's men is treason for that he was attained and exciquested not because of his faith.

Dany's action:

With killing those met under a peace banner or while a truce is on regardless of their character it shows her character that she would stoop so low to kill people and acheive her goals. Then abandoning cities to lawless chaos and destruction.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Actually, Guncer didn't attack anyone, Hubbard Rambton and sons did (I think). That's specifically why I mentioned him. Mild Lord Sunglass did no more than say "I can't support you anymore, if you're going to burn my gods". For that he burned.

Now withdrawing support verbally is treason to be sure, but he's certainly not "raising arms" against his lord.

[Demonblade]

He's looking to torch weirwood groves and force the wildlings to convert.

Actually he's not forcing them to convert at all, simply giving them a choice: either renounce their old gods, convert to his and swear loyalty to him, or turn around and take your chances beyond the Wall. I'll grant you that he is giving them a shitty choice but it's a choice nonetheless.

The same thing can be said of Stannis - burning down weirwoods and septs, then burning people alive when they predictably rebel against the blasphemy. I'll take a good deed with 'dishonorable' methods over a bad deed with no redeeming qualities in it whatsoever.

Burning the people that he ordered burned was an execution more than a sacrifice. They were already condemned to die.

Actually, Guncer didn't attack anyone, Hubbard Rambton and sons did (I think). That's specifically why I mentioned him. Mild Lord Sunglass did no more than say "I can't support you anymore, if you're going to burn my gods". For that he burned.

Guncer withdrew his support to his rightful liegelord and his king. That's treason and he deserved to die.

Now withdrawing support verbally is treason to be sure, but he's certainly not "raising arms" against his lord.

Not raising arms against Stannis, sure. But he withdrew his support and for that treason he was condemned to die. Granted he wasn't given a chance at clemency but that was Stannis's call to make, which he didn't, unfortunate for Guncer.

[Dornishman]

Yeah what Dany did really bothered me there. When I had read it I was like, did she just do what I think she did? After I reread I was like yup, she did...

I even tried to rationalize what she did by saying that she kind of did pay them, but just took the stuff back after she killed them.

So, uhm, what exactly WAS the problem? Dany conquered a city by not paying, thats no mean feat, and also managed to steal the Unsullied.

However what i think you're trying to get at here is that it was without honour certanily Ned or Stannis or Davos or Brenne or anyone with a real sence of the word, would never consider such a thing. And a term I'm fond of quoting is 'man (or woman in this case) who can't honour his word, is a man who can't have honour.' Unless they actually make a pennace or try and rectify it to those they have wronged which in her case is impossible. What she did is comparable to Walder's Red Wedding.

And Ned and Stannis and Davos and Brienne are, to to summarise, idiots. How much bad could have been averted if some of them would have acted just a little less honour-driven? So, no, their honour is NOT a good thing.

Danys pragmatism, is, though. While she caused chaos in Astapor, I am sure her reign will be beneficial for if not for Mereen, then for the people in Mereen, and hey, that is what matters. So here we see that all that honour did bad, while Dany's "unhonour" did good. And, you know, I rather go by the effects then any stupid honour codex.

And really, you say it is not bad to kill the slavers, but it is bad to lie to them? Geez, some people here have pretty messed up ethics...

And I also agree with Other-in-Law. By attacking the faith, Stannis violated the feudal contract. Its not an issue of property - in a realm that has two different faiths to begin with, respecting those two religions even if you are of the other is surely an integral part of the social order. Guncer Sunglass would even have as much right to rise up in arms then Stark, Baratheon and Arryn had (though, if they had, is another discusson.. thus, as much right as they had, how much ever that is). He certainly was within his rights to deny support to him.

And yet, he was burned, even though he never did any harm to anybody. Certainly, that IS much worse then everything Dany has ever done.

[Daemrion]

So, uhm, what exactly WAS the problem? Dany conquered a city by not paying, thats no mean feat, and also managed to steal the Unsullied.

She did it by moral trickery, by fraud/fraudulent conduct. The next time she does it the victim may not be one with such "dirty hands" as Slaver Masters. That's the problem.

Also the fact that she does not give a crap about the collateral damage done when she conquered the city. Then there was the whole instances of rape and stuff. I mean at least the US gave a slap on the wrist to those soldiers who tortured the prisoners. Dany goes, "I'm all along with it. I don't give a crap that you killed and raped defenceless people."

And Ned and Stannis and Davos and Brienne are, to to summarise, idiots. How much bad could have been averted if some of them would have acted just a little less honour-driven? So, no, their honour is NOT a good thing. Danys pragmatism, is, though. While she caused chaos in Astapor, I am sure her reign will be beneficial for if not for Mereen, then for the people in Mereen, and hey, that is what matters. So here we see that all that honour did bad, while Dany's "unhonour" did good. And, you know, I rather go by the effects then any stupid honour codex.

I.e. The ends justify the means. So if someone assassinated Dany because she was going to invade Westeros and then claimed that she had to do it to prevent her father, a soldier from being killed in battle then it would be perfectly okay? You know, theoretical assassin is saving a lot of people from dying by dragonfire. (forgetting about the Others who no one remembers or cares about).

[Dornishman]

"The end justifies the means" is too bland. Not every end justifes every mean. You could archieve world peace by simply killing oiff all of humanity, but that surely wouldnt be desirable. Because, the means have results themselves - and now, the simple "moral formula" would be if those results are worse as the problem you want to solve, then of course the end does not justify the means. Elsewise... yeha, it does. Well, thats pragmatism, and utilitarism. Theres nothing bad about that, en contraire. IMO, it tops all that "honour" stuff.

On the other hand, "honour" does not care for the effects, it merely cares for the "how", how you do it. And I cannot at all condone that.

She did it by moral trickery, by fraud/fraudulent conduct. The next time she does it the victim may not be one with such "dirty hands" as Slaver Masters. That's the problem.

Better by trickery then by the sword. It seems people here would rather have Dany storm the city with troops, and kill the Slave Masters in combat. I cannot understand that logic, not at all. In a battle surely more men would have died (at the very least due to the army Dany had in that case suffering losses, but also because real combat surely would have been more prolonged) then by that trickery. How then is trickery worse then combat? That makes no sense at all. So its okay to kill people, but not to cheat them???

Also the fact that she does not give a crap about the collateral damage done when she conquered the city. Then there was the whole instances of rape and stuff. I mean at least the US gave a slap on the wrist to those soldiers who tortured the prisoners. Dany goes, "I'm all along with it. I don't give a crap that you killed and raped defenceless people."

THE USA? You really want toa rgue with modern military forces and their rules of engagement here? No, any comparison must be within "historical" context. Or, in case of westeros/Matrinworld fictional context, so to say. Looting defeated cities was the most normal thing of the world IRL, and it seem it is so in Matrinworld, too. Its not at all different then Lannister or Stark "foraging" in the War of Five Kings.

You cannot hold any character to modern standards of moral. We ARE a more ethical age then the one Westeros is modelled on, the Middle Ages. If you weant to compare characters within a setting, you of course need to use the context of that setting. Now, if the characters do act ethically mroe advanced then their time, then thats good, but you cannot expect it!