Robert, Renly, or Stannis

[JKeats]

The whole burning of the Septs would cause rebellions and uprisings if he did it all over Westeros.

Stannis only burnt his own sept, and his own godswood in Storm's End. He can do as he likes with his own land and property. What makes you think he will order other people's septs burned down?

[CJS 2207]

Stannis, because I admire someone who can grind their teeth so audibly. :laugh:

[brashcandy]

Stannis only burnt his own sept, and his own godswood in Storm's End. He can do as he likes with his own land and property. What makes you think he will order other people's septs burned down?

You forget the burning of the weirwood branches at the wall? Once he starts at home, what would stop him from doing it across the land once he's in power at KL and wants to make Rh'llor the official religion of Westeros?

[Verboten]

The people of the Riverlands seem to like it.

[JKeats]

His own Hand, Davos Seaworth, is a follower of the Seven. There are plenty of people Stannis considers good and honorable men who are not worshipers of R'Hllor. Stannis never demands that they convert. His army both in ACoK and in ADwD is composed at least partially of non-believers. He doesn't seem to mind.

What do you expect he will do? Burn down the Great Sept of Baelor in KL, like the Lannisters claimed he would? Grasping at straws.

[The Irish Wolf]

Stannis for sure, he is just and very dutiful'; you wouldn't see many council's without Stannis in attendance, unlike Robert. We all know Robert was a pretty bad King with leaving the realm in massive debt and not being interested with the decision making process.

As for Renly, I feel like he would be the easiest to influence over the other brothers and was slightly cowardly, which is horrible for a King. I say this because of his actions when he was actually King, slowly making his way to Kings Landing instead of rushing to the city to conquer Joffrey and take the throne for himself.

[Kate Poem]

_{/irony on/}

_{I think king Stannis after crowning in King's Landing will begin raze all Seven believers, Old Gods believers, Drowned God believers etc. etc. if they would'nt conwert for R'hllor. Yeah, it is known.}

_{/irony off/}

[brashcandy]

As for Renly, I feel like he would be the easiest to influence over the other brothers and was slightly cowardly, which is horrible for a King. I say this because of his actions when he was actually King, slowly making his way to Kings Landing instead of rushing to the city to conquer Joffrey and take the throne for himself.

Was that cowardice or confidence? In the entire series few things equal the cowardice of Mel's and Stannis' shadowbaby assassination.

[Tini]

Was that cowardice or confidence? In the entire series few things equal the cowardice of Mel's and Stannis' shadowbaby assassination.

Tywin would have approved of that move, though. If he had found out how to create them, he would have used them himself. Littlefinger, too, and most players in the game of thrones. Much simpler than using poison, and more intimidating thean Gregor Clegane.

And no matter how cowardly it was, it saved hundreds, maybe even thousands, of simple soldiers who would have died otherwise trying to determine if Stannis or Renly is the better king. In the end that didn't matter much, though, the soldiers probably died in KL instead. Or starved.

[mediocre cheese]

Stannis only burnt his own sept, and his own godswood in Storm's End. He can do as he likes with his own land and property. What makes you think he will order other people's septs burned down?

It's his property because he seized it, by right of conquest. Not because he was born to the property of dragonstone, or because he had any right to it. Which is fine, right of conquest is part of the way westerosi view the world. Riverrun is the property of the freys because they won it through right of conquest. But lets not pretend that this is some impenetrable dividing line, between his property and others. Stannis views himself as a king, and kings can take whatever property they want. Winterfell is the property of Sansa, as the rightful stark heir, but he is prepared to give it to arnolf karstark, because he wants a stark ally to lay claim to the north with. If Stannis viewed some castle as something he would want, he would take it, because he feels as king that is his right.

The other major issue i have with this idea, is that it suggests that the sept, godswood ect are property of the lord and therefor he can do what he wants with them, fuck what the little people think. Septs/godswoods are houses of prayer which are communal, people who live in dragonstone have prayed in the sept their whole lives. Stannis has the ability to destroy these sacred places, just as tyrion had the legal ability to rape sansa, but that doesn't mean he should do it. The fact that by luck of birth stannis was given power to destroy septs, doesn't mean that doing so is right.

Some of the more pious men oppose the burning of the sept. One tells stannis he can no longer support him, others actively fight to preserve the sept. Were they wrong to do so? I suppose in the legal sense it makes them traitors for disobeying their king. But to them they are obeying their religious concise , and I don't see how that is a flaw. Thomas More refuses to follow the king and swear allegiance to a law stating the king is the supreme head of the church. Which made him a traitor and he was executed for it. But the post-mortem view was that More was a hero, something even protestants like johnathon swift said. It's weird to me to see people justifying burning men alive for following their religious beliefs. Did More deserve death? He did refuse to obey his king and follow the laws passed by the government.

A lord or a king has the power to do almost anything. Robert could send hired murderers after a 14 year old and it was his legal right to do, as king. Stannis is lord of dragonstone, because his brother appointed him as such, he has the legal right to burn places of worship, but that doesn't mean the action is acceptable from a moral standpoint.

Edit:

I should add, my own personal view is Thomas More was a fanatic and a tool, who burned people alive. That said, I think destroying places of worship is a negative trait in a ruler, and the idea that "he's the lord, its his property, so he can do what he want with it" is one I really strongly object to. And that someone who refuses to follow a king who does burn those places is somehow in the wrong is absurd to me. If someone's religious beliefs cause them to defy their secular ruler, that is admirable in most cases, especially when the secular ruler is the one making religious changes.

[Executor]

I was wondering, why is Renly gay in the tv show? I don't remember anything that indicated such a thing in the book.

[brashcandy]

A lord or a king has the power to do almost anything. Robert could send hired murderers after a 14 year old and it was his legal right to do, as king. Stannis is lord of dragonstone, because his brother appointed him as such, he has the legal right to burn places of worship, but that doesn't mean the action is acceptable from a moral standpoint.

Very well said, MC. Ramsay and Roose were Lords of the Dreadfort too, but I'm sure it didn't mean much to their flaying victims.

[Queen Cersei I]

Was that cowardice or confidence? In the entire series few things equal the cowardice of Mel's and Stannis' shadowbaby assassination.

Yeah, that move was incredibly sleezy. And for the record, I'm a hardcore Stannis fan, and think he's one of the most interesting characters in the books. (Unlike with many characters, GRRM seems able to portray Stannis without judgment-- he neither apparently identifies him so deeply he attempts (successfully) to whitewash him and justify every one of his bad deeds; nor does he demonize him at every tiurn, attempting to eliminate every possiblity that might make him admirable/ sympathetic, as he does with some other characters. (Tyrion and Cersei being the most painfully obvious examples of this phenomenon.)

However, that said, the shadowbaby thing was one of the creepiest, sneakiest deeds done in a book filled with morally ambiguous actions and betrayals. IMO, it was right up there with the red wedding. Rather than acting fairly, Stannis used sorcery and magic to murder his brother in cold blood, in a way that Renly could not possibly escape from. And, imo, that is what happened-- Stannis may claim he has "no idea" what happened, but he also claims he's not gonna hurt Edric Storm, he's only sleeping with Mel out of duty*, and he doesn't care what people think about him.

Stannis knew that Mel had a way to murder Renly in a way that Renly could not escape, and that would pose no risk to Stannis. He knew that Mel was a shadowbinder and was going to accomplish this feat by neocremancy and questionable means. He knew that he (and Mel) would be directly responsible for Renly's death. (Even though he later cheaply denied accountability because his body was in another place at the time.) He knew that Mel required both his semen and some of his vital energy to work her spell, which he delivered to her by obvious means. He knew that Mel would need it to be dark outside to use her magic. IMO, clearly Stannis knew exactly what he was doing to Renly, whatever the technicalities. People who say "it was all Melisandre" when speaking of Renly's murder are kidding themselves. As Mel says when Davos asked her who killed Renly, "Not I." And to an extent, I believe her. Stannis killed his brother; Melisandre merely gave him the means and the power with which to do so.

IMO, though I actually dislike Mel (a boring, cliched "sexy, mysterious sorceress" male fantasy archetype if there ever was one) and like Stannis's very much, at times I've felt as though of the two, Melisandre is the more moral. Of course, in real life, if one goes around burning people, it doesn't really matter if you believe what you are doing is "really" right or not. However, in the context of the books, Mel does at least seem driven by genuine, heartfelt belief, rather than the heady mixture of ambition, resentment, desperation, self-delusion, opportunism, and righteousness appears to lead Stannis.

Stannis first took up the blazing R'hllor torch (hahaha! :blushing: ) only after he was desperate and wanted help from the (apparently) powerful Melisandre. Later, after losing at blackwater, totally failing, having an apparent mental breakdown, and then proceeding to shack up with Mel underground for weeks, seeing nobody and looking at visions, Stannis seemed to turn to Mel's religion out of fear and desperation. (One notes that, at this point, he actually starts attending the nightfires, paying true homage to Mel's god, and takes true stock in the fact that he is, as Mel tells him, the chosen savior of Westeros. "Why was I chosen for this?" He asks Mel, apparently accepting his savior status and her religion as he had not before. IMO, this was because he totally broke down, failed, and needed to believe in them to maintain his strength and sense of purpose at that point.)

[CJS 2207]

I was wondering, why is Renly gay in the tv show? I don't remember anything that indicated such a thing in the book.

This is an example of HBO taking subtlety, hint, and nuance and smashing it to smithereens with Robert's warhammer.

This and the HBO obsession with staging as many characters in superfluous sex scenes as possible.

btw... on the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed season one.

[Tini]

I was wondering, why is Renly gay in the tv show? I don't remember anything that indicated such a thing in the book.

There are a number of hints but most of them are really easy to miss. The most obvious one was Jaime telling Ser Loras "sheathe your bloody sword, ser, or I'll take it from you, and shove it up some place that even Renly never found" when Ser Loras threatened Brienne.

[Queen Cersei I]

Tywin would have approved of that move, though.

Tywin approved of the Red Wedding, though.

Also approved of by Lord Tywin: The gang rape of his 14 year old daughter in law; the sexual abuse and public humiliation of an innocent woman, the murder of innocent children, the sexual abuse of his own son, the sexual use of his own sons former lover while wearing the necklace that his son gave her, etc.

And no matter how cowardly it was, it saved hundreds, maybe even thousands, of simple soldiers who would have died otherwise trying to determine if Stannis or Renly is the better king. In the end that didn't matter much, though, the soldiers probably died in KL instead. Or starved.

You actually have a point here. However, I don't really think protecting the well being of numerous soldiers was ever a motivating factor in Stannis's decision. It was simply that he could only win by playing dirty, so dirty he played.

[JKeats]

It's his property because he seized it, by right of conquest. Not because he was born to the property of dragonstone, or because he had any right to it. Which is fine, right of conquest is part of the way westerosi view the world. Riverrun is the property of the freys because they won it through right of conquest. But lets not pretend that this is some impenetrable dividing line, between his property and others. Stannis views himself as a king, and kings can take whatever property they want. Winterfell is the property of Sansa, as the rightful stark heir, but he is prepared to give it to arnolf karstark, because he wants a stark ally to lay claim to the north with. If Stannis viewed some castle as something he would want, he would take it, because he feels as king that is his right.

The other major issue i have with this idea, is that it suggests that the sept, godswood ect are property of the lord and therefor he can do what he wants with them, fuck what the little people think. Septs/godswoods are houses of prayer which are communal, people who live in dragonstone have prayed in the sept their whole lives. Stannis has the ability to destroy these sacred places, just as tyrion had the legal ability to rape sansa, but that doesn't mean he should do it. The fact that by luck of birth stannis was given power to destroy septs, doesn't mean that doing so is right.

Some of the more pious men oppose the burning of the sept. One tells stannis he can no longer support him, others actively fight to preserve the sept. Were they wrong to do so? I suppose in the legal sense it makes them traitors for disobeying their king. But to them they are obeying their religious concise , and I don't see how that is a flaw. Thomas More refuses to follow the king and swear allegiance to a law stating the king is the supreme head of the church. Which made him a traitor and he was executed for it. But the post-mortem view was that More was a hero, something even protestants like johnathon swift said. It's weird to me to see people justifying burning men alive for following their religious beliefs. Did More deserve death? He did refuse to obey his king and follow the laws passed by the government.

A lord or a king has the power to do almost anything. Robert could send hired murderers after a 14 year old and it was his legal right to do, as king. Stannis is lord of dragonstone, because his brother appointed him as such, he has the legal right to burn places of worship, but that doesn't mean the action is acceptable from a moral standpoint.

We can have a debate in another thread over the legitimacy of Stannis' lordship over Dragonstone.

The sept that was destroyed in the first Davos chapter of ACoK was the sept of Dragonstone castle, not a villiage sept for the smallfolk living on the island. If indeed there was one such. The text does not indicate one way or another. Same with the godswood at Storm's End. If there was a village nearby where the people practiced their faith in their way, Stannis did not interfere.

It was Lord Sunglass I believe who told Stannis he could no longer support him. Well where the hell does Lord Guncer get off telling Stannis he cannot dispose of his own sept? Sunglass has his own sept back in his home castle. Let him be pious there.

The assassination of Renly. Oh for goodness sake, the guy was a traitor and usurper. He earned an execution. The manner of his death ultimately saved a lot of lives. It's a shame the making of the shadow assassin is so expensive (in terms of "life force"). Elsewise Stannis ought to use them more often really.

[brashcandy]

Tywin would have approved of that move, though. If he had found out how to create them, he would have used them himself. Littlefinger, too, and most players in the game of thrones. Much simpler than using poison, and more intimidating thean Gregor Clegane.

And no matter how cowardly it was, it saved hundreds, maybe even thousands, of simple soldiers who would have died otherwise trying to determine if Stannis or Renly is the better king. In the end that didn't matter much, though, the soldiers probably died in KL instead. Or starved.

When we're judging an act by whether Tywin would approve of it or not, we should know we've left all moral integrity and fair play behind. This is man who had his son's teenage wife gangraped, his father's mistress paraded through the streets naked, and planned the Red Wedding.

[Tini]

When we're judging an act by whether Tywin would approve of it or not, we should know we've left all moral integrity and fair play behind. This is man who had his son's teenage wife gangraped, his father's mistress paraded through the streets naked, and planned the Red Wedding.

Whenever we compare something someone has done to the top players in the Game of Thrones, we are leaving moral integrity and fair play behind. Look at Tywin, Littlefinger, even the Queen of Thorns. If Littlefinger told the truth, the Queen of Thorns was involved in Sansa bringing poison to Joffrey's wedding, and she must have known that Sansa would become a suspect in Joffrey's murder really fast.

The paragon for moral integrity and fair play was Eddard Stark. And it made him a really bad player in the game.

[mediocre cheese]

The sept that was destroyed in the first Davos chapter of ACoK was the sept of Dragonstone castle, not a villiage sept for the smallfolk living on the island. If indeed there was one such. The text does not indicate one way or another. Same with the godswood at Storm's End. If there was a village nearby where the people practiced their faith in their way, Stannis did not interfere.

The sept/godswoods of a castle is prayed to by all the castles inhabitants. Hence why Osha's at the godswood in winterfell. The sept of the castle is the sept for the smallfolk who reside in the castle, as well as the knights and everyone else. A castle has a lot of residents. For all we know all of the DS residents prayed in the castle sept. But whatever, if you can't see that burning a house of worship is wrong, because "he's the lord" than I won't go further with it.

And as brashcandy already pointed out, he does interfere, he forced all the wildings to burn weirwood branches. That is interference.