Views on Stannis.

[Vandalism]

Because his name is cool, his very appearance is cool and he's the essence of bad-assery. And he has the best slogan; Ours is the FURY!

[KhaleesiDany]

Justice and honor has always been something that has been muddled. For instance, after a battle, King Edward IV would order all the common soldiers to be spared, but the Knights and gentry were to be killed. Other Kings would always put the common soldiers to death and ransom the Knights and gentry. War has never been chivalrous, it's a myth we like to believe.

War has always been a complete disregard for human life, Renly was willing to kill thousands so that he could justify his claim. Stannis was willing to take that hurtful decision to kill one and save thousands.

You should read this story "the ones who walk away from omeros" if you think killing one person is more important than letting people decide what to do with their own lives.

[KhaleesiDany]

Hmm how do you do the post in section like that?

I'm not saying that knights were chivalrous. I'm saying they were supposed to be, because they have a responsibility through their power. Of course it sounds idealistic because it is an ideal. I'm not surprised you find the idea naive because we apparently have different values about what it means to have a usable power. And you, Ser, are not fit to hold a sword! :fencing:

"But war reveals everything that is worse in humans. Only few have enough strength to keep in doing good things.

My point is that Stannis chose lesser evil. Hardly was it honourable, but the man was pushed into a corner. That is the situation when you need to bend the rules, especially when you are a king and your decision may cost you thousands of lives."

Ahhh someone admits Stannis is dishonorable. I win :lol: . In my opinion, Stannis chose the greater evil. He was pushed into a corner and his "traditional" options were: fight and lose, or help Renly and the Tyrells against the Lannisters, and he chose the third option to break the rules. About killing thousands, probably way more people in Westeros died because Stannis got in the way than if Renly had taken his army and marched against King's Landing. Not soldiers but common-folk who are now mostly going to starve over winter. Renly would have restored some order and Stannis just increased the chaos.

"Killing thousands" doesn't count for the army. Those men have made the decision to die fighting for what they believe in. it is the responsibility of the commander to try and win without sending them to their untimely deaths. I can appreciate Stannis assassinating Renly to avoid sending his army on a suicide mission, but I don't think he really has such regard for his soldiers like you think he does. That's another reason I don't like Stannis. He is a horrible military commander. His decisions at the Blackwater were just preposterous.

"So you consider betrayal of the family and threatening to an elder brother less honourable than using unusual tool to eliminate an enemy?"

Yes. I think threatening your (elder) brother is not as big of a sin as killing your (younger) brother.

"And by the way, I want to remind you that dragons are exactly the dishonourable technology of winning you describe. Am I right, KhaleesiDany?"

Hehe, no. Because if you see a dragon, you don't have to fight it. I'm not against new technology. You can say, "We are not going to win this. Let's make terms." You can't do that when someone never offers you terms and then ninja's you with a shadow-baby.

I knew from the minute Dany walked into Astapor with Drogon what she was going to do. In that case, her repulsion to slavery was greater than her ethical considerations of warfare. I don't think she acted "honorably" when it comes to rules of warfare, but rather for high ideals of anti-slavery(also to get her dragon back--but selfishness is a different issue and we are talking about higher concepts.) I don't think she has the ethical considerations that Stannis, Renly and the other lords in Westeros grew up respecting, because she learned about war from her husband's barbarian hordes. Stannis's disregard for social norms is just appalling to me. He only does it so he can win.The fact that he professes to be so honorable just makes it worse. He is a hypocrite.

"That's incorrect . . . in no way did Renly show that he is a better king, unless you have holding feasts and tournaments in mind."

to quote the books "the smallfolk loved him."

I haven't read ADWD yet so no spoilers please.

I loved your history examples. Am absolutely sickened by King Edward. Some of those examples cross over from ritualized warfare into total warfare which is exactly what I am talking about. Wiping out nations, genocide, etc happens when you don't have considerations for the other party as a people, you fear them for their differences and you just want them to die. It happens when really foreign cultures come into contact with each other, and all your examples reflect that. It's like a space-alien movie and there seems to be no option to compromise because you can't relate to who you are fighting at all. it's extremely dangerous, ultimately destructive. But Renly and Stannis are not from super different cultures--they are brothers. They are in the same culture, playing by the same rules, and he still rejects all such civilized concepts in order to win. Why? What made him so different?

I said it before and I really haven't said anything I didn't say in my first really short post. So i will say it again.

he is in it with the witch.

[LuisDantas]

Glad to have a sane voice in this thread, KhaleesiDany :)

As for the sessions, I believe you mean to use the quoting feature.

Just surround blocks of text with (quote) and (/quote), using square brackets instead of the round ones.

[Sr.DavosSeaworth]

I'm not saying that knights were chivalrous. I'm saying they were supposed to be, because they have a responsibility through their power. Of course it sounds idealistic because it is an ideal. I'm not surprised you find the idea naive because we apparently have different values about what it means to have a usable power. And you, Ser, are not fit to hold a sword! :fencing:

Stannis is not Eddard. If he was, he would be dead on the field after fighting Renly. One of the huge themes of this series is that heroes, that ideal that you talk about, do not last long in the real world. Eddard is dead. Renly is dead. Robb is dead. Maester Luwin is dead. Edmure Tully is imprisoned. The real question is whether the ends justifies the means. So, don't tell those willing to get their hands dirty that they are not fit to hold a sword.

Ahhh someone admits Stannis is dishonorable. I win :lol: . In my opinion, Stannis chose the greater evil. He was pushed into a corner and his "traditional" options were: fight and lose, or help Renly and the Tyrells against the Lannisters, and he chose the third option to break the rules. About killing thousands, probably way more people in Westeros died because Stannis got in the way than if Renly had taken his army and marched against King's Landing. Not soldiers but common-folk who are now mostly going to starve over winter. Renly would have restored some order and Stannis just increased the chaos.

The question is has never been whether or not Stannis' actions were honorable. Are you kidding? He murdered his brother with a shadow assassin born of sleeping with a witch... The defense here is whether or not they were justified. And they were. Not palatable, but justified. LuisDantas makes the argument that Renly was not betraying anything, and that may be true. However, he made a naked grab for power, based on military force alone, and lost. He rolled the dice, and you all know what Cersei says about losing at the Game of Thrones. As I have said before, if I led a rebellion against my country, despite never swearing personal allegiance to my head of state, I would be executed as a traitor if I failed, and lauded as a hero if I succeeded. Renly failed. He might have been a better king than Stannis, but we will never know. The wildlings would have taken the wall, that much is clear. Renly would still be facing Tywin, (and I know who I am betting on in that matchup) and we will never know if Robb Stark would have agreed to renounce the title of King in the North.

"Killing thousands" doesn't count for the army. Those men have made the decision to die fighting for what they believe in. it is the responsibility of the commander to try and win without sending them to their untimely deaths. I can appreciate Stannis assassinating Renly to avoid sending his army on a suicide mission, but I don't think he really has such regard for his soldiers like you think he does. That's another reason I don't like Stannis. He is a horrible military commander. His decisions at the Blackwater were just preposterous.

You are absolutely right. Stannis wasn't agonizing over the deaths of his soldiers. He was removing a traitor, and an obstacle to the Iron Throne. This was the only way to win. And when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Also, a "horrible miltiary commander"?? I am not trying to be mean, but what series have you been reading? He held Storms End, took Dragonstone from the mad king's forces, crushed the greyjoy fleet during the rebellion, and crushed a wildling army with 10 times his numbers at the wall. Sure, he lost at Blackwater, but even Frederick the Great, who Napoleon considered a great commander, only won like 70% of his battles. He doesnt do much well, at least give him his military due.

Hehe, no. Because if you see a dragon, you don't have to fight it. I'm not against new technology. You can say, "We are not going to win this. Let's make terms." You can't do that when someone never offers you terms and then ninja's you with a shadow-baby.

I knew from the minute Dany walked into Astapor with Drogon what she was going to do. In that case, her repulsion to slavery was greater than her ethical considerations of warfare. I don't think she acted "honorably" when it comes to rules of warfare, but rather for high ideals of anti-slavery(also to get her dragon back--but selfishness is a different issue and we are talking about higher concepts.)

Umm, she could have simply walked away from the unsullied, or taken only the slaves that she could actually afford. If you are going to argue that Stannis should have knuckled under to Renly, at least see that the knife can cut both ways. You have to be willing to go to extreme lengths when you play the game of thrones. Jorah put it this way: "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."

I don't think she has the ethical considerations that Stannis, Renly and the other lords in Westeros grew up respecting, because she learned about war from her husband's barbarian hordes. Stannis's disregard for social norms is just appalling to me. He only does it so he can win.The fact that he professes to be so honorable just makes it worse. He is a hypocrite.

Wait, Stannis claimed to be honorable? can you get me a page number for that one? (I am seriously interested, not trying to be a dick). All I remember him claiming is that he was the rightful heir.

"That's incorrect . . . in no way did Renly show that he is a better king, unless you have holding feasts and tournaments in mind."

to quote the books "the smallfolk loved him."

The game of thrones is not a popularity contest. As Varys tells us, the smallfolk really don't care who sits the Iron Throne. They pray for rain and peace.

I loved your history examples.

Read a little on Frederick II of Prussia when it concerns Stannis. I think they are very similar.

he is in it with the witch.

We have never denied that.

I am genuinely looking forward to hearing what you have to say,

Cheers.

[KhaleesiDany]

Glad to have a sane voice in this thread, KhaleesiDany :)

As for the sessions, I believe you mean to use the quoting feature.

Just surround blocks of text with (quote) and (/quote), using square brackets instead of the round ones.

Thanks and you did a great job of defending me earlier so i figured i have to defend myself a little.

But I don't think anything i said wasn't said in my first post. Just explained better.

And it's probably insane to think this way. That people should have a concept of honor and protect those who don't share their power. That you should compromise with someone even if they dont share your values.

SerDavosSeaworth, though you responded to my examples you wandered off topic from the thrust of my argument. Stannis's honor was exactly the question I was trying to address. Just look at the first page of this topic. Here's my reply to you:

The real question is whether the ends justifies the means.

A) NO.

You fail to acknowledge the differences between the camps in moral values. I think there are more important things than winning, even if you feel you have the right to win. If you have to lose, lose on terms that uphold the game (if the rules of the game are there for a reason.) Change the rules if the entire game will be improved (Free parking in monopoly is against the rules but I love playing it that way.) The game of thrones is the most important game because people's lives are at stake. Let's say instead of the game of thrones, Renly and Stannis were playing chess. Stannis won, basically, by flipping the board over when he was about to lose. Now we have a new game--who can flip the board over first. Think about the rules that each character wanted to change, and why.

Edmure Tully is imprisoned.

Edmure Tully? Should be dead already. Completely useless, weak, mistake to have him on your side in anything. Thinks he should have Riverrun because he was born to have riverrun. No concept of the duty that comes with the power of ruling a kingdom. Kind of reminds me of someone else we are talking about...

Not surprised he is so ineffectual at everything. If Westeros weren't so sexist, Cat would have made 100x better ruler than Edmure (mathematically proven). Oh and long live the blackfish.

As I have said before, if I led a rebellion against my country, despite never swearing personal allegiance to my head of state, I would be executed as a traitor if I failed, and lauded as a hero if I succeeded. Renly failed.

You're right. It is the victorious who write history. That does not mean it is a true story. Winning does not make you right.

He doesnt do much well, at least give him his military due.

Remember at the wall when Jon says they can hold the passage by forcing the wildlings to come in in small numbers, and there the battle against the mighty Magnar was fought and won. WHY? Because he didn't let the wildlings use their greater numbers. It's like, a really obvious military strategy that only stupid or desperate or haughty opponents fall for.

Stannis had the better fleet and he let the Lannisters use the bodies of his men and his ships to plug a hole in the river. So no, in respect to Davos and his sons, I will not give Stannis any kind of military due.

"Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."

Not saying if you fight this way you will win. You can win or lose fighting both ways. I think Robert was wrong for killing Rhaegar, you probably don't agree with me but everyone reads these books differently. These wars and killings are the result of how everything went to shit after Robert broke the rules by killing Rhaegar, and this is just one long drawn out story of the suffering that results when even just one person is not valiant.

[Noimporta]

Thinks he should have Riverrun because he was born to have riverrun. No concept of the duty that comes with the power of ruling a kingdom.

Edmure let the smallfolk that were being slaughtered inside his own castle to protect them, and forfeited his uncle's siege to spare his land more suffering. How is that not understanding a lord's duties? He's certainly a doofus, but please.

Stannis had the better fleet and he let the Lannisters use the bodies of his men and his ships to plug a hole in the river. So no, in respect to Davos and his sons, I will not give Stannis any kind of military due.

Stannis was not commanding the fleet during the battle of Blackwater

[Raerin]

Thanks, Sr.DavosSeaworth, I would not put it better.

I will throw in a few words from me. KhaleesiDany, there is a considerable difference between honour and duty. The first one is, generally speaking, a code of behaviour that forbids one to take advantage of other's weakness. I believe I do not need to explain the meaning of duty. Do not confuse those terms please. When talking about Stannis, it is duty that was most important to him. The funny part is that if you want to be a successful military leader or politician, the one who protects and cares for people below, you simply must take advantage of your opponents in order to minimize your losses. So ask yourself whether it is always possible to be a man performing his duty and keeping to the code of honour at the same time. Martin through his books shows us his point of view and I am inclined to agree with him on that matter.

Speaking of Renly, all I get from you, or LuisDantas, are mere assumptions that the Renly's claim is valid, because he would be so magnificent king. Why are you so sure that he would be so great? Do you have any living proofs of that? And why do you just ignore the fact that Renly behaved like a spoiled brat, greedy for new toys, not bothering about the consequences of his actions? That, in fact, he was presented as a deeply selfish man, a lesser copy of Robert Baratheon, the man who brought the kingdom to ruin and anarchy? I just do not get it.

As I told before, Renly, after proclaiming himself a king, became a traitor and a rebel. The charge of kinslaying is just an implication, simple effect of his actions, because under no circumstances could Stannis bend his knees - it has been said already why. There was only one punishment for those crimes in Westeros and it had to be done. Renly was a criminal, deal with it.

I understand the concerns about Stannis having his own brother killed. But please do tell me: if Benjen Stark deserted Night's Watch, and was captured and beheaded by Ned Stark, would you consider Ned Stark a sinner or kinslayer? The same situation, but instead insert Jon Snow and Robb Stark. What do you think? After all, the second case was close.

Your dragons, KhaleesiDany, indeed are the weapon that goes beyond the traditional system, you like it or not. It does not matter if the threat that they pose is obvious or not. They are as unnatural as shadow babies, and to their opponents is given only the choice ' you will die fast or you will die slowly, and you can do nothing about it.'

[Sr.DavosSeaworth]

SerDavosSeaworth, though you responded to my examples you wandered off topic from the thrust of my argument. Stannis's honor was exactly the question I was trying to address. Just look at the first page of this topic. Here's my reply to you:

And you missed the entire point of my post. Stannis has never claimed to be honorable. Those who say that he is honorable are misguided.

You fail to acknowledge the differences between the camps in moral values. I think there are more important things than winning, even if you feel you have the right to win. If you have to lose, lose on terms that uphold the game (if the rules of the game are there for a reason.) Change the rules if the entire game will be improved (Free parking in monopoly is against the rules but I love playing it that way.) The game of thrones is the most important game because people's lives are at stake. Let's say instead of the game of thrones, Renly and Stannis were playing chess. Stannis won, basically, by flipping the board over when he was about to lose. Now we have a new game--who can flip the board over first. Think about the rules that each character wanted to change, and why.

If you are going to make the argument that we must play by the rules, than Renly is no different than Stannis. Renly is not even allowed to play the game. This would be akin to pushing people ahead of you out of line to play at the aforesaid chess tournament. There are NO rules in the game of thrones. You win, or you die.

You're right. It is the victorious who write history. That does not mean it is a true story. Winning does not make you right.

No, it doesnt make you right. It makes you the winner. Renly would have demonized Stannis if he had won. But he didnt.

Remember at the wall when Jon says they can hold the passage by forcing the wildlings to come in in small numbers, and there the battle against the mighty Magnar was fought and won. WHY? Because he didn't let the wildlings use their greater numbers. It's like, a really obvious military strategy that only stupid or desperate or haughty opponents fall for.

Umm what? At the wall Stannis used a multi column attack pattern, took the enemy unawares, and won a complete victory. I am unaware of what point you are trying to make with the above.

Stannis had the better fleet and he let the Lannisters use the bodies of his men and his ships to plug a hole in the river. So no, in respect to Davos and his sons, I will not give Stannis any kind of military due.

I can only assume you are talking about the battle against the Ironborn? Because if you are talking about Blackwater I don't even know how to respond. With regards to the Ironborn, Stannis defeated the most potent naval power in Westeros at there own game, and at Blackwater he was caught unprepared by the wildfire and chain. Not his best moment. Lord Tywin considers him the most dangerous opponent the Lannisters have in Westeros. That should mean something. Also, Davos doesnt blame Stannis for the loss of his sons, he is even more loyal than before. Stannis one of the foremost commanders in Westeros, I don't even know why we are discussing this.

Not saying if you fight this way you will win. You can win or lose fighting both ways. I think Robert was wrong for killing Rhaegar, you probably don't agree with me but everyone reads these books differently. These wars and killings are the result of how everything went to shit after Robert broke the rules by killing Rhaegar, and this is just one long drawn out story of the suffering that results when even just one person is not valiant.

So you believe that Robert should have allowed himself to be executed by the Mad King? How do you think that Robert should have resolved the rebellion? Killed Aerys and placed his son on the throne? Also, are you suggesting that killing Rhaegar in personal combat at the Trident was somehow "not valiant?" I am trying to understand what you are saying here.

Cheers

[salt]

What can I say about Stannis that hasn't already been said by other characters?

"There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man"

-Varys

"This is Stannis Baratheon. The man will fight to the bitter end and then some"

-Tywin Lannister

[Vandalism]

Stannis Baratheon's first focus is justice and not honour, like Ned Stark's is. Stannis will do what justice dictates must be done, even if the method he uses to do so is not all that honourable. For example, using the shadow assassin to kill Renly. He was right to kill Renly because Renly was a usurper, but he didn't do it in a nice way and that is why people are so bothered by it.

Let's compare Ned and Stannis. Put Ned in Stannis' place in the whole Renly situation and Ned would have just gone back to Dragonstone or died at the hands of Renly's men, allowing Renly to continue his useless campaign.

Put Stannis in Ned's place at King's Landing in the whole incest-investigation, and he would have survived because he would not have told Cersei "for the good of her and her kids". What he did was the smart move, go to Dragonstone and wait for Robert's two favourite friends to spill the truth. One died, and the other was foolish enough to not do the job.

[Lord Varys]

By the way, it has never been stated anywhere that Stannis Baratheon is even a knight. I can't see him riding in tourneys and stuff, so I'm not sure that he ever spoke those vows. The fact that he admitted to Davos that he stopped believe in the Seven when his parents somewhat indicates to me that he would not have spoken the vows of knight afterwards.

It's entirely possible that he got a battle knighthood. Robert might have dubbed him when he charged him with the defense of Storm's End. But we simply do not know. If Stannis is no knight, he is not bound by all that chivalry stuff.

[KhaleesiDany]

:rolleyes:

You aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying, that's why you fail to do so.

I never said you have to play by the rules, I even acknowledged that rules were changed by both characters. I made a parallel of battle strategy between Stannis's defeat at the Blackwater and Jon's victory in a battle at the wall and you thought i was praising Stannis's victory at the wall. You don't know how to respond because you don't want to admit that putting ships up a river in a column is a strategic military mistake. My point about weapons technology is that your sense of responsibility needs to increase as the weapons become more powerful or you risk causing destruction greater than the good you would do by winning with them.

You and Raerin have completely ignored all my strongest examples of why killing Renly was wrong and worst of all, ignored my first main point that the reason people disagree about Renly/Stannis is from UNRESOLVABLE MORAL DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTER.

Everyone calls Renly an Usurper for declaring against Stannis, but what is next in line behind an Usurper (Robert), except an Usurper (Stannis)? You accept Robert's claim to the throne but think Renly's campaign was treason because you consider the bonds of family to be higher than the bond between lord and vassal, yet you support Stannis assassinating Renly? How does that make sense?

It makes sense to you because you think that winning is right. Justice, the final score. By this logic, you should support anyone who uses any means to get what they want. And you do! You said it yourself! You win or you die.

Not everyone thinks that way. Some people think there are more important things than winning. It doesn't mean winning is not important, just not as important as living well. This discussion is further polarized by different priorities about what it means to live well. I'm sorry the discussion took a turn into moral depth you're not quite ready to consider, to the point that you have to attack me stupidly on every point I tried to make.

These books are not so simple that one character is "the good guy" and another is "the bad guy." I can see how on his own terms Stannis is a just and even honorable character, but I can also see how he is a dictator and a hypocrite. He is a very complex character. He is deeply wounded by the way his brother Robert treated him. He is willing to make sacrifices, but not in anything that really matters to him. He is strong, but brittle, like iron, because he is so inflexible. There are other characters people can't agree on like, oh, just about any of them that have any depth.

I'm done here, okay. The topic of this thread is views on Stannis, and I've said enough about why I don't like him.

[Sr.DavosSeaworth]

:rolleyes:

You aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying, that's why you fail to do so.

How perceptive.

I never said you have to play by the rules, I even acknowledged that rules were changed by both characters. I made a parallel of battle strategy between Stannis's defeat at the Blackwater and Jon's victory in a battle at the wall and you thought i was praising Stannis's victory at the wall. You don't know how to respond because you don't want to admit that putting ships up a river in a column is a strategic military mistake. My point about weapons technology is that your sense of responsibility needs to increase as the weapons become more powerful or you risk causing destruction greater than the good you would do by winning with them.

I fully acknowledge that Stannis made mistakes at Blackwater. He didn't give command to the right people, he gave inadequate attention to recon, and assumed that he was going to win. You are ignoring all of Stannis' other victories, and trying to make the case that one lost battle means that Stannis is not a good military commander.

You and Raerin have completely ignored all my strongest examples of why killing Renly was wrong and worst of all, ignored my first main point that the reason people disagree about Renly/Stannis is from UNRESOLVABLE MORAL DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTER.

I have never tried to say that killing Renly was not wrong. I have tried to explain why it was justifiable. I am not trying to say that Stannis is a nice man who plays with puppies. He is a man who does what is necessary to succeed.

Everyone calls Renly an Usurper for declaring against Stannis, but what is next in line behind an Usurper (Robert), except an Usurper (Stannis)? You accept Robert's claim to the throne but think Renly's campaign was treason because you consider the bonds of family to be higher than the bond between lord and vassal, yet you support Stannis assassinating Renly? How does that make sense?

The difference here, is that as a Targaryen loyalist, you view Robert as a usurper. We accept Robert's claim because he won. We respect people who are willing to do what is necessary to succeed. We think Renly's campaign was treason because he did not have a legitimate claim to the throne aside from popular support. We support Stannis assassinating Renly because it was a successful move in the game of thrones.

It makes sense to you because you think that winning is right. Justice, the final score. By this logic, you should support anyone who uses any means to get what they want. And you do! You said it yourself! You win or you die.

Yes. To us, that appears to be one of the main messages of the series.

Not everyone thinks that way. Some people think there are more important things than winning. It doesn't mean winning is not important, just not as important as living well. This discussion is further polarized by different priorities about what it means to live well. I'm sorry the discussion took a turn into moral depth you're not quite ready to consider, to the point that you have to attack me stupidly on every point I tried to make.

In my personal life, I perfectly agree. When it comes to Game of Thrones, winning is everything. I am not a "lost causer."

These books are not so simple that one character is "the good guy" and another is "the bad guy." I can see how on his own terms Stannis is a just and even honorable character, but I can also see how he is a dictator and a hypocrite. He is a very complex character. He is deeply wounded by the way his brother Robert treated him. He is willing to make sacrifices, but not in anything that really matters to him. He is strong, but brittle, like iron, because he is so inflexible. There are other characters people can't agree on like, oh, just about any of them that have any depth.

Yes, that is absolutely right. That is exactly what we have been trying to say. Stannis is not some righteous judge. He is a man just like the rest of us.

I'm done here, okay. The topic of this thread is views on Stannis, and I've said enough about why I don't like him.

Sounds good, always good to hear different opinions!

Cheers.

[Zar Lannister]

I don't think Stannis is an usurper by default because Robert revolted and took the throne.

Robert may be an usurper to Targaryen eyes (and all his supporters traitors). But he's the acknowledged King by Westeros.

Therefore, Stannis clinging to claim his duty as rightful heir to the throne is not a moral difference in character. The throne is his by rights of conquer by the Baratheon line.

Aegon The Conqueror did the same thing, he defeated all Kings of the Seven Kingdoms and made himself the King.

[sunxiaohu]

He is not all that just as he pretends to be... He killed his own brother, a kinslayer.

Didn't he use magic to have Robb, Joffrey, and Balon killed? Remember the three leaches he threw in the flames? the ones drenched with blood from Edric Storm?

There's no solid evidence that sacrificing the leeches actually caused the deaths of those three kings. My opinion is that Mellisandre's magic is fundamentally flawed. She can use the Shadow Assassins to kill, but since then her powers have been less useful. Even her greatest deception, convincing Stannis that he is AA, does not live up to the prophecy. Aemon pointed this out. Furthermore, when we look at the powers of Thoros of Myr, for example, his great gift is restoring life. Mellisandre only seeks to cause death. Maybe Rhllor abandoned her! Just my opinion though.

[Sigrid]

I like Stannis in as much he is a complex character and adds something interesting to the proceedings. I like some of the things he does (going against the Lannisters, answering the call of the Night's Watch) yet find him as a character totally unlikable. There were times I want to root for him, and then he opens his mouth and I just can't stand him. I think that he represents justice taken to the extreme. It would be an interesting exercise to compare Stannis, Ned, and Jaimie and their views on honor and justice.

To sum up, he is a wonderful character that adds a lot to the story, but he isn't a likable character.