Who wants to be king for the 'right' reasons?

[LuisDantas]

IIRC that was Renly saying that while he recognizes the tactical advantage of a night time attack, he refuses to use it after having promised to wait until morning.

He was not wrong.

Had he lived, he might well think better of agreeing to attack against the rising sun in the future. But agree he did, and after that he had to choose between expedient treachery or paying the price for his foolishness. Had he been treacherous, his reputation would suffer, perhaps irreparably so.

[The King in the South]

IIRC that was Renly saying that while he recognizes the tactical advantage of a night time attack, he refuses to use it after having promised to wait until morning.

He was not wrong.

Had he lived, he might well think better of agreeing to attack against the rising sun in the future. But agree he did, and after that he had to choose between expedient treachery or paying the price for his foolishness. Had he been treacherous, his reputation would suffer, perhaps irreparably so.

His reputation among who? All of his battle commanders/the important lords were for the night attack, and they're the ones that hold the power/influence. And I'm pretty sure no common soldier cares more about whether they're being chivalrous over their own livelihood. And it's certainly not going to impress Stannis, because he's going to dead whether or not Renly attacks at night.

Face it, the dude had an ego that he was trying to sastify, and he thought that ego was more important than the lives of the men who were dying for his crown.

edit: and an "irreparable" (really, irreparable? are you kidding me? it's not like he announced his decision to the entirety of both the armies) reputation hardly means anything when you have the largest army by far.

[Winter's Knight]

His reputation among who? All of his battle commanders/the important lords were for the night attack, and they're the ones that hold the power/influence. And I'm pretty sure no common soldier cares more about whether they're being chivalrous over their own livelihood. And it's certainly not going to impress Stannis, because he's going to dead whether or not Renly attacks at night.

Face it, the dude had an ego that he was trying to sastify, and he thought that ego was more important than the lives of the men who were dying for his crown.

edit: and an "irreparable" (really, irreparable? are you kidding me? it's not like he announced his decision to the entirety of both the armies) reputation hardly means anything when you have the largest army by far.

Wouldn't it be a bit like slaying a guest or killing an unarmed foe?

[butterbumps!]

If you say so. It doesn't really mean a lot, as far as laws are concerned. Not until and unless actual proof can be produced. Can you think of any?

If you seriously take this as a possibility, then I guess I offer the following:

1. That Cersei and Jaime both admit to this (i.e. Cersei to Ned, Cersei and Jaime's interior monologues, Cersei and Jaime to each other, Cersei to Tyrion), especially considering that doing so goes completely against their own interests.

2. That Cersei specifically describes how she took measures to prevent Robert's seed from ever planting (because it seems this might need clarification, she took moon tea after Robert slept with her, and or she knew herself to be already pregnant with Jaime's kid when she had relations with Robert).

3. That in the absence of DNA testing, Martin gives us the "proof," numerous times that Robert's "seed is strong," i.e. that we are not to question the dominance of Robert's genes when it comes to hair/ eye colour.

4. It would go against every piece of the plot if this were the case, and I think Martin intends for us to take C+J=J,T,M as a given.

I don't lend a lot of attention to that kind of definition. They have little meaning or purpose outside of court cerimonies.

Well, I guess if you don't believe in the canonically accepted definition of a word, there is little anyone can do to convince you otherwise, but it does make it hard to engage with your arguments, because you are using "legitimate" to mean something other than what is normally understood to be its definition.

Regarding your having determined Renly to have a "legitimate right":

Why, no, he doesn't! No one does! Unless you believe in a divine right to rule, which I certainly don't.

Thrones aren't a right, but rather a conquest or perhaps an inheritance.

Renly claim, however, was quite honest and legitimate. Unlike Joffrey's, which relied in (as far as we know) false premises, or Stannis', which depends on unproven ones. It was what it appeared to be: an out-of-sequence appeal to his supposed superion qualities as a potential ruler.

Renly's claim was, quite openly, a direct challenge to the letter of the law.

I'm not sure I have to elaborate on the breakdown here.

- Renly chose to cut the food suply lines to King's Landing in order to pressure the Lannisters away from their claim, which arguably was the most human approach to the matter.

This is actually one of the most cited reasons to show that he didn't care about the plight of the smallfolk, as cutting the food supply effectively starved the people.

Regarding your point that laws are negotiable-- they can be, but they are not arbitrarily changed. Human construct or not, they're in place to maintain a semblance of order and justice, and while there are bad laws and good laws, everyone can't forcibly challenge every law because they don't agree with them. That's why they're called laws and not whims.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything. It's just that I really don't understand your arguments.

[LuisDantas]

Wouldn't it be a bit like slaying a guest or killing an unarmed foe?

Precisely. It would be disonorable in the extreme. Acting that way makes leaders ill-liked, and rightfully so, until their people turn against them.

[voodooqueen126]

Since power is a zero-sum game it is important that those in power are worthy of it.

Power is also neutral (unlike money which is good) so those who have power ought to be good.

[FuzzyJAM]

Of the claimants to the Iron Throne:

Robert - Goes as far as to say he doesn't want to be king so he largely rules himself out of this topic. Has not abdicated only because he fears what Joffrey would do. I can respect that at least, but he's a pretty large failure as a ruler and "That guy is going to be even worse!" is not good enough reasoning.

Joffrey - Awful person all round. Wants power so he can abuse it.

Tommen - A little kid with no understanding. Wants to be king so he can stamp his seal on documents and order his mother to allow him to get kittens. Cute, but not exactly kingly material as of yet.

Stannis - Claims to not want to be king, but simply is king. Does some terrible things, but at least appears to want to be king to save Westeros. Flawed, but better than most.

Renly - Appears to want to be king because of his vanity more than anything else. Demonstrates lots of poor judgement and directly attacks any sort of stability Westeros might have.

Viserys - Awful person. Wants to be king because it's his "right", which is unacceptable.

Dany - Seems to at least have empathy with her people and recognise that it's her job to help those who look to her for help, which counts for a lot. However, she fails the trials put before her and her initial desire to be queen seems to come from her belief that it's her "right". Flawed, but better than most.

Euron - Desires conquest and nothing more. Awful person.

Victarion - Same as his brother.

Aegon - Hard to say.

Claimants to other kingdoms:

Balon - Same as his brothers, just with less ambition.

Variety of other Iron Born contenders - mostly the same.

Asha - Appears strong. Is involved in wars of conquest but seems to be at least less cruel than her rivals, and vastly more intelligent. Wishes to rule to limit suffering of her own people and others; clearly the best candidate available. Flawed person, but good reasons to wish to rule.

Hizdahr zo Loraq - Hard to judge his reasons. Seems ineffectual at best.

Robb - Doesn't originally wish to be king. Honourable, intelligent, inspirational. Like his father but more diplomatic and politically savvy. Even accepting his failure regarding Jeyne and refusal to punish his mother properly, he is far and away the best person to make a claim to rule, and does so for good reasons: he is chosen by his subjects and has a strong legal claim.

Mance - Has ruled somewhat through conquest and somewhat through diplomacy. Wishes to save his people. An oathbreaker. Flawed person, but wishes to rule for seemingly the right reasons.

Tormund - Hard to say; seems affable enough, honourable, and looks out for the safety of his people.

Good reasons: Asha, Robb, Tormund (possibly), Mance (possibly)

Mixed reasons: Dany

Flawed reasons: Stannis

Flawed/bad reasons: Renly

Awful reasons: Joffrey, Viserys, Euron, Victarion, Balon

Unknown: Hizdahr zo Loraq, Aegon

Cat reasons: Tommen

[LuisDantas]

If you seriously take this as a possibility, then I guess I offer the following:

1. That Cersei and Jaime both admit to this (i.e. Cersei to Ned, Cersei and Jaime's interior monologues, Cersei and Jaime to each other, Cersei to Tyrion), especially considering that doing so goes completely against their own interests.

2. That Cersei specifically describes how she took measures to prevent Robert's seed from ever planting (because it seems this might need clarification, she took moon tea after Robert slept with her, and or she knew herself to be already pregnant with Jaime's kid when she had relations with Robert).

3. That in the absence of DNA testing, Martin gives us the "proof," numerous times that Robert's "seed is strong," i.e. that we are not to question the dominance of Robert's genes when it comes to hair/ eye colour.

4. It would go against every piece of the plot if this were the case, and I think Martin intends for us to take C+J=J,T,M as a given.

I don't disagree, but my point doesn't rely on what their real parents are, but rather on the fact that a non-political proof of paternity isn't available to Stannis or anywhere else on Westeros. Jaime considered confessing at one point, but it never went beyond a spur-of-the-moment waking dream, and it is not likely to ever go beyond that.

So no, for good or worse the Westerosi have no proof and must instead make political choices, albeit often very passionate ones.

Well, I guess if you don't believe in the canonically accepted definition of a word, there is little anyone can do to convince you otherwise, but it does make it hard to engage with your arguments, because you are using "legitimate" to mean something other than what is normally understood to be its definition.

It is far less a matter of recognizing the so-called usual definition of the word than of recognizing how narrow its applicability is. It does not really matter for practical purposes.

Regarding your having determined Renly to have a "legitimate right":

I'm not sure I have to elaborate on the breakdown here.

Far as I can tell we are simply disagreeing on how relevant or how important the lawfulness of Renly's claim is, as contrasted to its practical power.

This is actually one of the most cited reasons to show that he didn't care about the plight of the smallfolk, as cutting the food supply effectively starved the people.

And I can see that it is a good case for one to make. Still, it doesn't look all that bad when compared to waging full-blown warfare, now does it? Famine when can protest against or even run away from. Swordpoint is far more drastic and sudden.

Regarding your point that laws are negotiable-- they can be, but they are not arbitrarily changed. Human construct or not, they're in place to maintain a semblance of order and justice, and while there are bad laws and good laws, everyone can't forcibly challenge every law because they don't agree with them. That's why they're called laws and not whims.

They are called laws because they are backed by someone with political and/or military power. They are still arbitrary, and often enough glorified whims.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything. It's just that I really don't understand your arguments.

No worries. :)

[Buried Treasure]

Wouldn't it be a bit like slaying a guest or killing an unarmed foe?

Precisely. It would be disonorable in the extreme. Acting that way makes leaders ill-liked, and rightfully so, until their people turn against them.

Kinslaying and guestslaying are the two greatest taboos of their society. I don't think suprise nighttime attacks rate even as highly as normal murder in the dishonourable stakes.

In the series Robb did launch a suprise attack on a sleeping army, and the general consensus (even from the Lannisters) is that Ser Stafford was a fool not to have scouts out to negate the suprise rather than that Robb acted in an atrocious manner. It's not strictly honourable (and certainly not chivalrous) but in warfare there is some leeway in how dishonourable it is permissible to be in order to gain an advantage against the foe. Where the rules can be bent is itself somewhat regulated by tradition and honour - a suprise attack is fine, a suprise attack during a parley would be extremely dishonourable.

In this instance Renly would be breaking his word as he had told Stannis he would not attack early (dishonourable but not sinful as he did not swear an oath to it). A night attack would have been unchivalrous but Stannis' forces should have been on guard against the possibility as there was no formal truce (as I recall).

[butterbumps!]

@luisDantas

Ok. I think I see what you've been trying to say now:

You are mistrustful of putting weight on the notions of laws, because you do not subscribe to laws as being innately "right," and that because of this, they are meant to be questioned and challenged. I don't disagree with this premise, and earlier you cited America's adoption of a law that abolished slavery. But it's good to remember that a major difference is that in America, we have a Constitution outlining the division of power between the Executive, Legislative (law making) and Judicial (interpretation of the law) branches, which prevents (at least in theory) hasty or arbitrary disruptions to the law and the order that comes with it. I merely take issue with your notion that anyone and everyone should challenge Westerosi customs/ laws for no reason other than they don't like them, because doing so in the prevailing system of government comes at great cost, since they don't have a division of power that enables such change without bloodshed.

But I would also add that given your views on the malleability of laws, that any argument based on "legitimacy"can't make sense, because "legitimate" inherently refers to legal issues. I think what you're trying to say is that you believe, for example, Renly's claim is the best in an absolute sense of what is "good" because you believe him to be the best suited leader to the throne. I think this means that you can't also say that this claim is legally right ("legitimate"), because I think that's what led to all this confusion.

I still have to disagree with you that Renly's claim comes close to being good in any interpretation of this.

[Noimporta]

And I can see that it is a good case for one to make. Still, it doesn't look all that bad when compared to waging full-blown warfare, now does it?

Nope. War is killing among soldiers, starving a city out directly affects unaffiliated civilians the most, and death by starvation is infinitely crueler than death by swordpoint.

That is somewhat arguable. Joffrey was a very dangerous King, even for his own supporters. I can't really blame Renly for refusing to support him, and in all honesty I don't think even Ned, Robb or Stannis would have failed to challenge his rule even if they knew for a fact that he is Robert's son.

Given that Renly's first choice was to sieze Joffrey and rule through him as a puppet, it's pretty obvious his rebellion wasn't motivated by the latter's cruelty and madness.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Nope. War is killing among soldiers, starving a city out directly affects unaffiliated civilians the most, and death by starvation is infinitely crueler than death by swordpoint.

Yeah, I don't get idea that Renly closing the road and letting the capital starve is any less evil than actual fighting. People end up equally dead and that way, Renly isn't troubled to look into the faces of people he's allowing to die while he sits on his ass and watches jousts.

[DornishKnight]

Yeah, I don't get idea that Renly closing the road and letting the capital starve is any less evil than actual fighting. People end up equally dead and that way, Renly isn't troubled to look into the faces of people he's allowing to die while he sits on his ass and watches jousts.

It's certainly a better plan than actually fighting. You get to starve and demoralize the populace, who will then blame the king who failed to take care of them. Then, when you get there, you can catapult bread over the walls (El Cid style) and turn the hungry people against the city's rulers.

[The King in the South]

Wouldn't it be a bit like slaying a guest or killing an unarmed foe?

Is it? No one mentioned anything when Dany did it. And as for killing unarmed foes, didn't Robb Stark basically slaughter a bunch of sleeping soldiers in the Whispering Winds?

That's besides the point though. Like I said before, who is this going to damage Renly's reputation with? His battle commanders/most influential supporters want him to do this, his soldiers are more concerned about their livelihood than some words, Stannis's men are going to die/come over anyways, etc,etc. The only potential one is Catelyn, but by the time she would have gotten back to Robb, King's Landing probably would have fallen.

The only reason Renly doesn't do it is because he has an ego and wants to view himself as better than the rest. And when you place that ego above the lives of thousands of men, it means you are not a king for the right reasons.

It's certainly a better plan than actually fighting. You get to starve and demoralize the populace, who will then blame the king who failed to take care of them. Then, when you get there, you can catapult bread over the walls (El Cid style) and turn the hungry people against the city's rulers.

No one's saying it isn't a smart battle strategy, we're saying it's not a "good" thing to do, because he's directly starving hundreds if not thousands of people. That makes him a good battle commander, not a good or a "right" king.

[Serie]

I can't think of a king (real or fictional) who hasn't done or allowed monstrous things in order to preserve his power..... and that's not said in order to justify such actions. Good intentions are rarely enough anyway :(

[Binadas Sengar]

I think the answer is Rhaegar.......but if he became King......then we wouldn't have a story would we?

In terms of Tommen's claim, I just don't get it being considered legitimate. His Mother admitted it to the hand of the King, who alerted in writing Stannis and then said hand was branded a traitor and slain by the false King who's crown fell to Tommen after he passed. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Lord Tyrion of the Rock]

Dolorous Edd should be King. He's always prepared for the worst.