Rethinking Stannis

[lee1026]

The vassels sworn their fealty by the old gods and the new. But the lord of light is neither of them.

[Walpurgisborn]

He's even newer.

Which means He has to be the best.

Sort of like new Coke.

[Daemrion]

Where exactly did she commit fraud? The Good Masters themselves counseled her to bloody the Unsullied early -- so she did. She gave the Good Masters everything she promised them (including even Drogon); she just took it back by right of conquest rather rapidly.

She went into the contract without the intention to see it through, she never intended to give up Drogon. Therefore that is moral turpitude enough to sound in fraud. And even if she did fulfill her contract one could argue that her conquesting it back so rapidly evinces a fraudulent intention anyway, objectively.

It's like Y gives X a knife for $5, and then X killing Y for the $5 back. Can you really say that that does not show moral turpitude, or evinces an objective intention of fraud?

Not to say the very least that she murdered them.

That makes no sense at all. So its okay to kill people, but not to cheat them???

Killing people in battle is justifiable homicide. Otherwise any soldier in any armed forces throughout all the ages is a murderer. But killing the enemy by trickery, well, it is murder. I mean if X ally stabs you in the back...would you name it murder?

[laker]

My beliefs on Stannis are that in the event the Dany proves to be a good leader (which I believe she is) that he will swear allegiance to her. He said on one occasion that he never wanted the crown, but that by rights it was his and therefore he would assume the responsibility. He also comments on how choosing between Areys and his brother was one of his hardest decisions he had to ever make. I could not see Dany excepting him in any way other then him kneeling at her feet, especially based of the amount of hatred she holds towards those houses that supported Robert, much alone his own brother. Stannis choosing to support the night watch, even if he’s just trying to get a new army, will have to show to Dany that at least he is a man of honor, and when stannis realizes that the sword he carries is not Lightbringer, Amen comments on this at some point I believe, then combined with the return of Dany stannis will give up any claim he still has for the crown and join her.

Sorry for any grammer or spelling errors

[Dornishman]

After rethinking... yes, it does seem that Stannis hasnt burned anybody for different believes. Yet, maybe, but yes, so far he hasnt.

But it is apepaling on itself that Melisandre gets away with burning people while he is gone! That shows how weak a king he is.

[mormont]

She went into the contract without the intention to see it through, she never intended to give up Drogon. Therefore that is moral turpitude enough to sound in fraud. And even if she did fulfill her contract one could argue that her conquesting it back so rapidly evinces a fraudulent intention anyway, objectively.

It's like Y gives X a knife for $5, and then X killing Y for the $5 back. Can you really say that that does not show moral turpitude, or evinces an objective intention of fraud?

You omit to mention that Y's ownership of the 'knife' is not recognised by X, that X considers what Y does with the 'knife' to be immoral and abusive, and that X does not consider the $5 to be her 'property' to give up in the first place.

Given these factors, the contract is void, because X did not consider it to be a valid legal relationship (on several grounds). Therefore there is no contract and consequently no fraud.

ETA - the Wise Masters should have done their due diligence on this 'contract': caveat emptor and all that. But they were blinded by greed.

Of course you can argue that this is an excessively legalistic argument and you would be correct. But the alternative is to argue on moral grounds, and that leaves you in the position of claiming that trading in slaves is morally superior to freeing them. Good luck with that.

laker: if you take Stannis purely at his word, you are right, he doesn't want to be king. But I suspect there's a little self-deception there. At the very least, Stannis considers himself to be the best man for the job.

In any case, Stannis has burned his bridges (excuse the phrase) with the Targaryens. It took much soul-searching for him to abandon the legal claims of Aerys, Rhaegar and Viserys, but he did it and as a consequence, he no longer recognises the validity of the Targ line, IMO. It's not just a matter of loyalty to Robert or Aerys' madness: if that were the case he'd have declared for Viserys after Robert's death. (Especially if he genuinely doesn't want to be king himself.)

I can't see him performing a volte-face just because Dany shows up. He already knows she exists, after all: yet he's shown no interest in her claim or her character.

[Daemrion]

Mormont: I still have a problem with Dany's 'the ends justify the means type thinking and behaviour'.

If X considers that the $5 is not her property in the first place and she is representing it objectively to be her 'property' - she's guilty of misrepresentation (another action involving moral turpitude).

You can't argue that she has been telling/representing to everyone that the dragon's are her property in the story.

It does not matter that what X thinks Y does with the knife is immoral and abusive, X is supposed to just not enter the bargain then.

Look, the contract in itself under today's law would problem be contracting to do an illegality anyway,(selling human slaves and all...)

[mormont]

Mormont: I still have a problem with Dany's 'the ends justify the means type thinking and behaviour'.

It is a feature of her character, though, at least so far.

If X considers that the $5 is not her property in the first place and she is representing it objectively to be her 'property' - she's guilty of misrepresentation (another action involving moral turpitude).

She doesn't, in fact, actively do this. She merely doesn't correct the Wise Master's erroneous assumption, at least not until they try to take possession. (At which point she does. )

One could argue that as an act of negligence. But my position on that would be: tough shit on the decadent, abusive, greedy slaver bastards.

It does not matter that what X thinks Y does with the knife is immoral and abusive, X is supposed to just not enter the bargain then.

She doesn't. She just plays along with the Wise Master's (mistaken) impression that she has, in order to achieve something she believes to be a greater good.

Look, the contract in itself under today's law would problem be contracting to do an illegality anyway,(selling human slaves and all...)

Which is the exact reason why I think it's daft to complain about her 'commiting fraud' in this incident.

[Dornishman]

Mormont: I still have a problem with Dany's 'the ends justify the means type thinking and behaviour'.

Well, and I have a problem with the idiotic obsession with "honour" some people like Eddard, Robb or Stannis have. The results clearly show which one is betetr - not only for the people themselves, but also their surroundings.

I have read A Million Open Doors again yesterday... ah, forgot the authors name, but it has a wonderful quote:

"People who put ideals above people are people who hate people"

[Guest Other-in-law]

Demonblade,

I don't recall saying that at all. I made a reply to your post where you claimed that Stannis didn't have any cause to have Guncer executed when it was perfectly within his rights to have him done so.

I certainly did not say that Stannis didn't have cause to execute Sunglass. My exact words, in fact, were:

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.

and

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

A little different from saying "no cause', wouldn't you agree? In fact I was responding to erroneous statements by Cybroleach:

No, he killed them because they killed his men.

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 (sic) not because of his faith.

and CelticBrennus:

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

in which they claim Guncer was guilty of violent treason. In fact Guncer did nothing violent. He did not raise his arms against his King, he said he could no longer support his claim.

Is that still treason? Sure. But it's significantly different from actually "raising arms". I'm not sure why it's so difficult to recognise an insistance on accuracy for what it is, instead of misconstruing it as a denial of Sunglass treason.

If someone says "John Hinckley jr tried to assassinate President Reagan, AND he murdered Jesus Christ, AND he sacked Rome, AND he caused the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon" and you respond with "No, he only did the first of those things" they would be making a non-sequitur if they insisted "He did TOO try to assassinate President Reagan!" because you had not denied that, right?

Stannis doesn't just kill in self-defense, he kills when people object to his fanaticism or ambitions.

................................................................................

.......

Davos is a prime example of men who still follow a faith that is not of Stannis's and is strangely enough still alive.

Davos has wisely kept his mouth shut about the morality of burning Septs, for the most part .

Cybroleach,

The Rambton's where his men by not his not rebuking what they did he is responsible for their actions. Making his as much a traitor and killer as them.

I can't even parse that, let alone understand it. Bottom line, Sunglass didn't kill anyone. That's not a prerequisite for the pyre in Stannis' little kingdom.

Did Septon Barre also feed Mel's flames?

[CelticBrennus]

in which they claim Guncer was guilty of violent treason. In fact Guncer did nothing violent. He did not raise his arms against his King, he said he could no longer support his claim.

Which as far as my post went, was the result of a simple mix up between Rambarton and Sunglass. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is that still treason? Sure. But it's significantly different from actually "raising arms". I'm not sure why it's so difficult to recognise an insistance on accuracy for what it is, instead of misconstruing it as a denial of Sunglass treason.

Hell yeah its treason. Sunglass had a legal and moral obligation to follow his feudal oaths that he made before his gods. Sunglass broke those oaths because he did not like the way that Stannis handled his personal faith, and matters of worship on his personal property.

[cybroleach]

Cybroleach,

I can't even parse that, let alone understand it. Bottom line, Sunglass didn't kill anyone. That's not a prerequisite for the pyre in Stannis' little kingdom.

Did Septon Barre also feed Mel's flames?

Sorry i try and clarify,

House Rambton is sworne to Lord Sunglass, thus as thier lord he is responsible for their actions. When they killed Stannis' guards, Sunglass did nothing to disassociate for his sworne knights or condeming what they did. By not having done this it is a show of support from their actions as their lord making him just as guilty.

For the Septa,

i doubt it but i'm not sure.

[Guest Other-in-law]

cybroleach,

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realise that the Rambtons were vassals of the Sunglasses. Where is a source for that?

I find the idea that oaths sworn before gods that have since been outlawed may no longer be binding to be rather interesting. Also if 'Mr legality' Stannis isn't responsible for human sacrifices that Melisandre committed during his absence, shouldn't he be obligated to punish her for committing murder? Either he accepts responsibility (and it's lawful) or he doesn't (and it's extralegal).

[CelticBrennus]

I find the idea that oaths sworn before gods that have since been outlawed may no longer be binding to be rather interesting.

No faiths have been outlawed or banned by Stannis. He made a personal choice to change religions, and to burn his personal sept. Nothing more.

You swear those oaths according to the gods you believe in, not those your liege lord believes in.

[Yakman]

Stannis will NOT bend the knee to Dany.

If that were his position he wouldn't have claimed the throne for himself, but would have done the same as Barristan Selmy did and pledged to the Queen Across the Water.

In the showdown between Dany and Stannis who will win?

My belief is that it is Stannis.

Look at all the people who see him as dangerous: Jorah Mormont, Donal Noye, Tywin Lannister, Victarion Greyjoy. If those guys think you are not someone to trifle with, then you aren't someone to trifle with.

And in the end, Stannis will... not... stop. He will win the Iron Throne no matter what, even though no banners come to his call, even though he faces down an army ten times the size of his own, even though his armies are broken and he is left with a few islands and a single fort, even though Melisandre will abandon him, he will never, ever stop seeking the Iron Throne.

In the end, it will cost him everything, but he may yet attain it.

[Daenerys]

Throughout, Stannis is portrayed as being cold and logical and impervious to influence and manipulation (which sound like great traits for a king). Because of this, I have a hard time accepting his involvement with Melisandre and the God of the Light, etc. I think Martin has a nonsequitur here.

[laker]

Well, and I have a problem with the idiotic obsession with "honour" some people like Eddard, Robb or Stannis have. The results clearly show which one is betetr - not only for the people themselves, but also their surroundings.

I think honor has always been a way to express the true fellings of somone who hides behind a belief. Like in most religious to act apon ones fellings is a sin, so insted of living by what they always feel to be right they hide behind what they precive all others to see as right, and in doing so they make easier to make their own choice. Weak is honor, or faith, and though we credit most people for having the so called courage to admit when they "are wrong", we shun those who act based off what truely seems right to them Honor is the same type of shield that laughter, silence, or anger are, only a means through which to hide ones true feelings, and to make excusses for the choices they make.

[A wilding]

Throughout, Stannis is portrayed as being cold and logical and impervious to influence and manipulation (which sound like great traits for a king). Because of this, I have a hard time accepting his involvement with Melisandre and the God of the Light, etc. I think Martin has a nonsequitur here.

If it helps, Stannis took on Melisandre purely for pragmatic reasons. His position at the start of ACoK was so weak he had little chance of winning out by conventional means, and she gave him reason to think she provided an alternative option.

There is a good quote on this somewhere near the start of ACoK. Stannis says something like "Half my knights are afraid even to speak her name, did you know that? If she can do nothing else, a sorceress capable of inspiring such fear will have her uses. And perhaps she can do other things. I mean to find out."

[Grumpygoat]

Throughout, Stannis is portrayed as being cold and logical and impervious to influence and manipulation (which sound like great traits for a king). Because of this, I have a hard time accepting his involvement with Melisandre and the God of the Light, etc. I think Martin has a nonsequitur here.

Stannis is quite susceptible to influence and manipulation - if you know how to play him right. One of the first things you need to do to influence him is get results. Melisandre knows how to play him and gets the results required to do so. She's also a beautiful woman.

To a degree, Stannis suffers from an inferiority complex. Robert was king. Robert had a beautiful wife. Everybody loved Robert.

Stannis, meanwhile, went bald early, has a wife with moustache and isn't particularly loved by anyone.

Melisandre gives him power, prestige and a lusty sexpot all in one. She presses every last one of Stannis' buttons. Attention from a beautiful woman. Power enough to be king himself (or does a lot in the way of swaying things Stannis' way).

It's only foiled by the fact that Stannis, whether he always succeeds or not, actually wants to be a good, decent, fair man - it's one of the few things that makes him a better person than Robert and was likely one aspect he latched onto if only to convince himself that he was Robert's equal or even better. Which Davos constantly reminds him of - to be a better person.

Stannis portrays the sense that he's cold, logical and impervious to influence, but he isn't really. He's emotional, caring, bitter and a whole lot of other things all wrapped up in one. And if there's one thing he does, it's doubt. Massively. Do I support Aerys or Robert? Do I make a dragon and damn my soul or die a virtuous rebel? Do I want the throne because of duty or because, really, at the end of the day...I'd like to be in the limelight, to be the hero, just the once?

It's also far too black and white to say that, just because Stannis didn't go running off to support some 13 year old girl who, for all he knew, was just this side of a beggar, that he wouldn't support a 16-17 year old woman with an army and more than a little justification for what she's doing. Whose presence alone can make Stannis's claim look no better than Renly's (My brother kicked your ass, and might makes right, nyah!).

It'll be interesting to see how Stannis reacts. As I already stated, I'm gambling on him bending the knee to Dany. If, of course...

...he's not dead before then. I'd almost guarantee Stannis doesn't make it to the last book. He has doomed spelled across his forehead. Tattooed. Branded. In triplicate.

[Yakman]

It's also far too black and white to say that, just because Stannis didn't go running off to support some 13 year old girl who, for all he knew, was just this side of a beggar, that he wouldn't support a 16-17 year old woman with an army and more than a little justification for what she's doing. Whose presence alone can make Stannis's claim look no better than Renly's (My brother kicked your ass, and might makes right, nyah!).

It'll be interesting to see how Stannis reacts. As I already stated, I'm gambling on him bending the knee to Dany. If, of course...

...he's not dead before then. I'd almost guarantee Stannis doesn't make it to the last book. He has doomed spelled across his forehead. Tattooed. Branded. In triplicate.

Stannis ain't bending no knee and he's not going out easy. He'll be Dany's end, I think...