Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lokii

Stannis's Conversion

Recommended Posts

Stannis' attitude to R'hllor is pretty much: 'Paris vaut bien une messe'.

He's actually quite pragmatic about it, as the 'Proudwing' speech in ACoK makes clear - it's also why I find it hard to view Stannis as much more than a hypocrite with a Nixon-sized chip on his shoulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how much of a hypocrite he is. In Westerosi marriages, do men swear a vow not the cheat on their wives? I'd have to reread the Tyrion/Sansa marriage chapter. If he did, then he is hypocritical in that sense, though nearly everyone is in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't per se, but Stannis' hypocrisy lies in his refusal to apply his iron code to himself. He's willing to label others false while reserving for himself the right to do whatever it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't per se, but Stannis' hypocrisy lies in his refusal to apply his iron code to himself. He's willing to label others false while reserving for himself the right to do whatever it takes.

Well, maybe...I would certainly listen to this argument, and I don't doubt that all people (both real and fictional, at least the well written ones) are hypocritical at times, but I don't see Stannis as being particularly guilty of it. While I could be forgetting something, it seems that all he has done has been within the laws of Westeros. After all, he is legally king. Had Joffrey been Robert's son Stannis would have served him loyally until the day he died as the uncle nobody ever wants to visit.

Mellisandre is evil. Stannis was so full of hatred and jealousy of his brother Renly, that she manipulated Stannis into selling his soul to the demon god, and he will have to pay for it with his life unfortunately.

The Old Gods are the true Gods.

Is this a serious post from someone who has read the five books? If it is I'm happy to respond to it, but it sounds kind of tongue-in-cheek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of off topic, but you know what the funniest thing is about the Baratheon brothers? Robert didn't love either of his brothers, neither did Renly, and Stannis didn't love Robert. The only bit of love between the three of them was from Stannis toward Renly, which we see when Stannis reflects on his death with Davos- and he assassinated him with shadow magic :D. That right there is a dysfunctional family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stannis handles his a position as arguably Robert's successor rather foolishly, so we need more parameters.

Did accepting Melisandre hurt his cause? Sure. But only because his cause is doomed from the get-go. His root mistake is not getting support from a fanatic cult, but rather pushing his solo claim in the first place.

His expectations are not reasonable, and R'hlorr will eventually take from him more than he gave him. But Stannis isn't wise enough a man to actually want a better fate anyway. Donal Noye was right when he described Stannis as some who will break instead of bending. His whole arc is the story of his slow, painful breaking and of how dearly it will cost those who support him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that the 3,500 or so men sailing to the end of the world to save Westeros and the Wall at the last minute from an army of 40,000 barbarians in one of the greatest scenes in the book series felt like a glimpse of slow, painful breaking. Nor did the sample chapter from TWOW, or the chapter where they take Deepwood Motte from the Ironborn invaders and immediately return it to its rightful owner who hadn't even pledged any sort of allegiance to Stannis.

We'll have to wait for the next book to see what happens to Stannis and the people that support him. But of all the causes that people have supported since the war began, you could certainly pick a worse one than the rightful king also happens to be the only one trying to save Westeros from the threat that overshadows all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stannis is by no means a rightful king. He isa self-proclaimed one that dishonorably stole the followers of his far more succesful brother.

He would have nominal support from the law if he could prove his accusations of incest and bastardy, true. But ultimately that would mean very little even if he had it. Political conditions create laws, not the other way around.

As for his campaign at the Wall, it amounts to two very specific successes - loaded ones at that - surrounded by major failures: the moral failure at Storm's End, the military disaster at Blackwater, the reckless attempt at Winterfell that is slowly killing his troops all through ADWD to the point that he is already talking about his death in the sample chapter of Winds. Nor is it even clear that much would be earned if he took Winterfell; his losses are already extensive, his troops fanatic, intolerant and hardly compatible with the needs of the North. At the moment, they will be lucky if they have horses to return to the Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stannis is by no means a rightful king. He isa self-proclaimed one that dishonorably stole the followers of his far more succesful brother.

Technically, he is the rightful king. You don't have to like the guy, and the great thing about these books is that different people will reach totally different conclusions about who to root for, but he is King Robert Baratheon's heir. That's just a fact. It doesn't mean much in the current winner-take-all lawlessness of a Westeros at war, but that doesn't make it any less true.

How successful Renly was is debatable. If we're talking about achieved success, all he can claim there is being popular and marrying Margery. If we're talking about success that was handed to him as a child and a teenager, being given Storm's End and a position on the small council by his brother, than Renly was definitely more successful.

Certainly, there was no moral failure at Storm's End by the standards of a medieval society on which Westeros is based. Stannis was Renly's older brother and became the head of House Baratheon of the Stormlands when Robert died. Renly committed treason by taking up arms to usurp his position, and there is no European feudal society in history in which, had Renly lost, he would not have been at the very least imprisoned and stripped of all his titles, if not killed. Certainly assassination wasn't the honorable way to execute the law, but honor was Ned's thing. Duty and rights are Stannis's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ultimate verdict on Melissandre's contribution to Stannis and his cause is still out. As I see it, she has given him both advantages and disadvantages...it remains to be seen how this will all turn out in the end.

And what will happen if she suddenly focuses her attention on Jon Snow as the 'messiah' as it seems she may do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what will happen if she suddenly focuses her attention on Jon Snow as the 'messiah' as it seems she may do?

Maybe she will bring his body back to life, Thoros and Beric style. Although that would feel a bit anticlimactic. I do expect Jon's future in TWOW, whatever that may be, to be affected by Mel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, he is the rightful king.

Only if laws alone could make kings, which they can not. Claims are not reality, and claims of law must submit to the reality of people's desires.

And that is before considering that Stannis can't even prove that the law supports his case.

You don't have to like the guy, and the great thing about these books is that different people will reach totally different conclusions about who to root for,

Truth be told, Stannis bugs me. I never imagined that he would be a controversial figure. Jaime, yes, sure. Tyrion? Inevitable, I suppose. Renly? Of course, he refuses to support Robb and is attempting a coup to boot. But Stannis lost all credibility when he killed Renly.

but he is King Robert Baratheon's heir. That's just a fact.

Nope. It would be a fact if he could prove that the law supports his claim. And if such proof were accepted by enough Lords and smallfolk.

Or, I suppose, if his campaign ends up succesful, which is a dicey bet at best.

Until then, he has little more than a determined and unduly succesful claim.

It doesn't mean much in the current winner-take-all lawlessness of a Westeros at war, but that doesn't make it any less true.

It isn't at all true, anyway...

How successful Renly was is debatable. If we're talking about achieved success, all he can claim there is being popular and marrying Margery.

Raising troops and political support is what creates kings, however...

If we're talking about success that was handed to him as a child and a teenager, being given Storm's End and a position on the small council by his brother, than Renly was definitely more successful.

Irrelevant. For one thing, Storm's End lacks miltary strength, as told by GRRM himself. Renly is as much of a self-made man as Stannis, but a far more succesful one until he was slain.

Certainly, there was no moral failure at Storm's End by the standards of a medieval society on which Westeros is based.

Quite wrong.

Slaying Renly was a MAJOR moral failure. Actually, a full war crime, by Westerosi standards or any other.

Stannis was Renly's older brother and became the head of House Baratheon of the Stormlands when Robert died. Renly committed treason by taking up arms to usurp his position, and there is no European feudal society in history in which, had Renly lost, he would not have been at the very least imprisoned and stripped of all his titles, if not killed.

Sorry, that is a grave misreading.

Renly owed no fealty to Stannis. He was a rebel, not a traitor, as was his full right.

Certainly assassination wasn't the honorable way to execute the law, but honor was Ned's thing. Duty and rights are Stannis's.

Honor is a primary duty for anyone, however. And that is why Stannis is ultimately a major hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hurt his cause by instead of just choosing the Faith of R'hollor, he lets Melisandre have her way in burning the sept and the godswood saying the Lord of Light is the only god, instead of just letting people practice the faiths they choose.

Thats pretty much how I feel, he would've had a better chance if he'd put Mel on a shorter leash. Also Mel poses some interesting moral questions herself, being a nutjob fanatic, but also pretty damn hot.

To put an end to salt and Luis Dantas argument, whoever wins the war is the rightful king, and whoever loses the war is a traitor. It is known. Renly was apparently a traitor, with Stannis it remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if laws alone could make kings, which they can not. Claims are not reality, and claims of law must submit to the reality of people's desires.

And that is before considering that Stannis can't even prove that the law supports his case.

Truth be told, Stannis bugs me. I never imagined that he would be a controversial figure. Jaime, yes, sure. Tyrion? Inevitable, I suppose. Renly? Of course, he refuses to support Robb and is attempting a coup to boot. But Stannis lost all credibility when he killed Renly.

Nope. It would be a fact if he could prove that the law supports his claim. And if such proof were accepted by enough Lords and smallfolk.

Or, I suppose, if his campaign ends up succesful, which is a dicey bet at best.

Until then, he has little more than a determined and unduly succesful claim.

Unless you are stating that the law is against him, don't go around saying techniqually. Anyways, as stated before, you don't have to like it, but the law is with Stannis, making him the rightful king.

E: The reader has knowlege about Cersei's incest, proving that Stannis is so, whether the small folk no or not is irrelavent. From our current understanding, he is the rightful king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luis Dantas why do You think Renly owed no fealty to Stannis? Why do You think Renly owed no fealty to - for example - his "nephews"?

Renly WAS traitor because:

1/ I suppose he, as member of Small Council must swear some oath to his king and brother, Robert Baratheon;

2/ Joffrey "Baratheon" was born in marriage of Cersei Lannister and Robert Baratheon.

3/ Joffrey "was" Crown Prince and heir to Iron Throne.

4/ And, after Robert's death, Joffrey...

5/ Renly knew nothing about incest - I can imagine Stannis, who would serve loyally his trueborn nephew all his life - I can't imagine Renly in the same situation, because it happened. I have proof for his treachery.

George Martin presented some examples noble born older and younger brothers: Tywin and Kevan (bad Lannisters), Robb, Bran and Rickon (good Starks), Gregor and Sandor (evil to the core, dark grey as fog). Bran knew (before meeting with Jaime) he become Robb's bannerman, Kevan was Tywin's loyal servant, Sandor fled from his home.

No one from these people thought not about taking his sibling's place or title.

One person killed his older half-brother. His name is Ramsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a rightful king in this society. Stannis never understood that the rightful king is the one who takes it and holds it. All the succession laws in the world aren't going to change that. Those laws only work if everyone agrees to them - but they don't. Anyone trying to rebel or stake a claim to the Iron Throne thinks they have a pretty good reason that the law doesn't apply to them.

If Stannis had understood this, he would have worked harder at securing alliances and gathering his strength instead of taking shortcuts via Red Gods and assassin shadow babies. Then he and Renly could have had a fair fight. Instead he has the diplomatic sensibility and charisma of a slug. Burning the statues of the seven, in Westeros, was one of the worst things he/Melisandre could do.

Oddly, I can respect Mel just a bit more than Stannis, because at least she is consistent.

On the other hand, Stannis is much better suited to the North and the Wall than he is for King's Landing, because fighting Others requires a kind of singlemindedness and dedication that Stannis does have.

And Renly is/was a traitor only because he didn't get to be king. It's the king who gets to say who is/isn't a traitor. And can we really fault him for "betraying" the likes of Joff and to a lesser degree Stannis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are stating that the law is against him, don't go around saying techniqually.

Salt used that word in this thread. I did not.

Still, the law is against Stannis' claim, if one goes by the Lannister's interpretation of same. Just as it is for his claim going by Stannis' own. Such an impasse can only be solved by agreeing on an arbiter of some sort - or by military action to bypass the whole question.

The time for arbiters seems to have come and gone quite early, however.

Anyways, as stated before, you don't have to like it, but the law is with Stannis, making him the rightful king.

Indeed, I don't have to like it. Nor do the Lannisters have to recognize it, either. That is why Tommen is recognized as the rightful king by far more people than Stannis.

Without proof, his claim is no stronger than Tommen's. Meta knowledge (and not even certain one at that - we don't know for a fact that Tommen is not Robert's son, after all) does not figure into Stannis' claim.

E: The reader has knowlege about Cersei's incest, proving that Stannis is so, whether the small folk no or not is irrelavent. From our current understanding, he is the rightful king.

To paraphrase the tv show: how many ships can we give Stannis? How many knights? How many footmen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luis Dantas why do You think Renly owed no fealty to Stannis? Why do You think Renly owed no fealty to - for example - his "nephews"?

For two very good reasons; first, as you point out, there isn't a consensus on whether the law favors the Lannister claim or the Stannis one. Therefore, it is unclear which would be the lawful heir - Stannis or Joffrey (later Tommen).

But the main reason is because fealty from High Lords is not supposed to be automatic. Renly never promised Stannis fealty, or even hinted in that direction. He rebelled against both Joffrey and Stannis, but he betrayed neither. He would have to mislead them before he could betray them.

Renly WAS traitor because:

1/ I suppose he, as member of Small Council must swear some oath to his king and brother, Robert Baratheon;

2/ Joffrey "Baratheon" was born in marriage of Cersei Lannister and Robert Baratheon.

3/ Joffrey "was" Crown Prince and heir to Iron Throne.

4/ And, after Robert's death, Joffrey...

5/ Renly knew nothing about incest - I can imagine Stannis, who would serve loyally his trueborn nephew all his life - I can't imagine Renly in the same situation, because it happened. I have proof for his treachery.

Later books suggest that the incest was something of an open secret. Regardless, the true parentage of the kids is irrelevant until and unless it is openly contested by someone with enough political or military clout.

George Martin presented some examples noble born older and younger brothers: Tywin and Kevan (bad Lannisters), Robb, Bran and Rickon (good Starks), Gregor and Sandor (evil to the core, dark grey as fog). Bran knew (before meeting with Jaime) he become Robb's bannerman, Kevan was Tywin's loyal servant, Sandor fled from his home.

I won't call Kevan a bad man, personally. Nor am I quite certain that Gregor was evil so much as mentally challenged.

No one from these people thought not about taking his sibling's place or title.

Kevan succeeded Tywin as Hand, albeit not immediately. Sandor despises Gregor.

Still, I don't think any of them except Bran and his brothers ever had the chance to consider whether or not to recognize their brothers as Kings.

One person killed his older half-brother. His name is Ramsay.

Count on me to despise any claims of Lordship or throne inheritance coming from him. Actually, count on me to refuse to tell him the time of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let me explain this to you. Based on the information that WE know as readers/viewers, we can see that Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella, are all bastards. Stannis is the middle child of the Baratheons, the next in line for kingship. You state that rights don't make kings, and thats fine, but you must recognize that LEGALLY Stannis is next in line. Therefore, he is the RIGHTFUL king, which doesn't neccasarily mean he will win the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the fact that kingship is seized by the political situation at that time. If Westeros society decides that Tyrion is the rightful king, then he is, and Stannis would have to forcibly make his way to the throne.

The Targaryens are a clear example. They were the rightful kings, until the Usurper defeated them. Now Stannis is the rightful king, but what if all houses join up against him?

This seems pretty obvious, you cannot be king if everybody is against you. :dunce:

If we argue that the rights come before everything, and in the end it´s all that matters, then it´s Dany we´re talking about, not Stannis.

However, i do not think the situation with the Targaryens Rebellion(TR) is the exact same as this. From my point of view, the Lannisters are the ones rebelling and trying to get the throne for themselves. They kill Eddard, and thus the Starks, lusting for blood, got themselves in this mess, and Tully quickly followed. Once they realized all this, Robb decided to keep fighting by claiming his independence. But he would not have followed through until the end, had Stannis won. He just did not feel like kneeling before the guys who killed his father.

Also, by this point I think everybody assumes that the Baratheon kid is basically a Lannister puppet. Understandably, Renly was not happy, so he acted in consequence. If they knew Stannis was the rightful heir, the Tyrells would probably not have joined renly. Think about it, it´s like Viserys turning against Rhaegar. And the other factions are all taking advantage of this.

To conclude, i think that if Robert had discovered the plot, executed the Lannisters and then died, letting Stannis the throne, things would be different. Everybody would knew what they were doing, just like in the TR. If Renly or somebody showed up and defeated Stannis, he would be the rightful heir. But here, few are trying to defeat the Baratheon dinasty, they are just thinking that the Baratheons are already KO and falls to them to stop this Lannister guys. They are not actually rebelling against Stannis, ´cause they cannot know. So yeah, imo law still demands Stannis to be king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×