Which of the following Monarchs would you serve?

[Sevumar]

But, in an attempt to venture back to the original questions, I'm going to give another reason to support Stannis. Because by the commonly accepted laws of succession, he is the rightful king. That is not an automatic trump card. Aerys was the rightful king as well, as were Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Unworthy. If you are going to disregard long settled law, you ought to have good reasons. Stannis' enemies have not put forward good reasons, at least to my mind.

The law made Stannis the king, but his actions proved him worthy of the throne. Of all the contenders, he's the only who put his money where his mouth is and went to defend the realm. He needed a reminder from Davos, but he did it and it could be important in the defense of the realm.

[Jem]

The thread has drifted considerably from where it began, which is fine of course. Within reason, discussions wandering off topic can still be fruitful.

But, in an attempt to venture back to the original questions, I'm going to give another reason to support Stannis. Because by the commonly accepted laws of succession, he is the rightful king. That is not an automatic trump card. Aerys was the rightful king as well, as were Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Unworthy. If you are going to disregard long settled law, you ought to have good reasons. Stannis' enemies have not put forward good reasons, at least to my mind.

Robb Stark had the most worthy justification, but even so it falls a little short. Just my opinion, which I have defended in other threads on these boards.

Except Stannis is not the lawful heir to the throne, Tommen is.

Sure, we know it differently, and probably a significant amount of people in Westeros suspect it, but aside from a raven mail smear campaign Stannis has never adequately addressed the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Cersei's children. Rather than running around killing his brother with shadowbabies and whatnot he should have hightailed it to KL to settle the matter once and for all.

[Sevumar]

Sure, we know it differently, and probably a significant amount of people in Westeros suspect it, but aside from a raven mail smear campaign Stannis has never adequately addressed the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Cersei's children. Rather than running around killing his brother with shadowbabies and whatnot he should have hightailed it to KL to settle the matter once and for all.

You saw what Cersei did to the will of the lawful king and the man she duped people into believing was the father of her bastards. What makes anybody think that Stannis would've survived a trip to King's Landing or that Cersei would've listened to reason? Stannis's only real hope was to get an army and press his claim the same way that the Lannisters were trying to defend their theft of the throne.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

@Apple

I think you undermine her magic and hindsight, but regardless she put salt in the wound, burn that bitch. 

You hate on Dragons and Shadowbabies. I don't because MMD had it coming and no one died to create the Shadowbaby (except Renly and that dude who had a thing for Edric, but war=death)

So I wonder how you feel about R+L, regardless of who's fault it was, mayhaps a million have died cuz of it. So if you hate R+L do you forever hate the unredeemable J?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

@Apple

I think you undermine her magic and hindsight, but regardless she put salt in the wound, burn that bitch.

You hate on Dragons and Shadowbabies. I don't because MMD had it coming and no one died to create the Shadowbaby (except Renly and that dude who had a thing for Edric, but war=death)

Agree to disagree then. MMD didn't owe Dany shit.

So I wonder how you feel about R+L, regardless of who's fault it was, mayhaps a million have died cuz of it. So if you hate R+L do you forever hate the unredeemable J?

How is Jon culpable for what his parents did? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Sevumar]

I think you undermine her magic and hindsight, but regardless she put salt in the wound, burn that bitch.

So Mirri Maz Duur is a "bitch" who deserves to burn for using her abilities to take revenge on one of the leaders of the people who ravaged her homeland and who stood to be the direct beneficiary of the money raised from that raid? But Dany is perfectly right to murder MMD because of the effects of the magic she begged MMD for? Doesn't make sense.

[Castel]

My view on shadow assassins is that they are somewhat analogous to unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones) the US has been using these past few years.

By that I mean the use of such tools, even in service of just causes - and here I realize there is much room to debate the justice of a cause, in our world as well as in ASOIAF - raises important questions. But as troubling as drones and shadow assassins are, I do not think they are pre se evil.

I'm not prepared to enter a deeper discussion on this just now, certainly not in this thread, but I would say that the ethics of Melisandre's shadow assassins is not a settled question in my mind. I could go either way on them.

Honestly I don't see the difference between shadowbabies and drones. I think that this whole dark magic divide is just baggage from other fantasy series. I don't know where the dark magic is objectively evil comes from. This isn't Star Wars, I don't see how we can buy into the gray all the time and then turn around and change when there's little to no evidence that magic allows us to see the world differently. As far as I can tell, things are judged by their possible results. The result of shadowbabies: a strike against a specific target -a traitor- with no collateral damage. The results of dragons: significant collateral damage, from Quentyn to that child to the stadium. The objectives are also important imo.

I think a large part of what troubles me about shadow assassins is that they are outside the "usual" methods of warfare. In a world where magic is in full swing, perhaps combatants would expect to see their equivalents more often, but Renly and his knights of summer expected to die on the field facing their enemies with weapons in hand.

While Stannis's use of the assassins preserved the men who might have died in that battle, it also took an action that is usually reserved for pleasure or procreation and turned it into the means of murder.

No, Renly expected to kill Stannis on the field. This is also what I don't get. I see the same thing in Robb threads, where it's a bit more justifiable, seeing as there's a thousand year stigma to it, but the idea that people have to play fair and die is just so strange to me. "Play fair" is bullshit speak for "Play in a way that gives me a chance to win even though I shouldn't and it puts you at risk". I can see why the WEsterosi would buy into this self-serving ideal, just not why I should. Fair is already a terribly skewed term considering the vast majority of men don't have a hope in hell against knights, and when an equalizer shows up (guns) people pull the same; "It's dishonorable" crap.

Renly was a traitor intent on killing or capturing Stannis and usurping his throne. There was ample evidence against him and he admitted his treason. Why is he entitled to some sort of honest, honorable combat? He is completely dishonorable.

I don't believe ignorance is a legitimate excuse. Dany is very ignorant about a great many things and though I feel pity for her lack of education, I do not think it's reasonable to blame ignorance for a person's moral, political or military failure. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse that most people will accept. I think it's even worse for a person to say, "I don't want to know". Stannis is certainly guilty of this with regards to the shadowbabies.

Not really.. If I recall Stannis said that Mel was in the same room as him, she clearly didn't go out and pull some sneaky shit. When it came to Ser Cortnay, he's much more liable, but in the first instance he can reasonably claim ignorance. I don't think that ignorance is a non-context sensitive thing. Unless he knew that Mel had a plan to kill Renly in his tent then I think that he's less liable.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

As the Dragons have no control of being born. So if you got Dragons why not use em? Why compare it too Meli's baby (which I still don't see what's wrong)

[Sevumar]

Renly was a traitor intent on killing or capturing Stannis and usurping his throne. There was ample evidence against him and he admitted his treason. Why is he entitled to some sort of honest, honorable combat? He is completely dishonorable.

Honor doesn't enter into it and it wasn't a part of what I was saying. I was saying it's more likely to be viewed as treachery because it is sneaky and unusual. Most knights who are at war probably expect to die of illness, wounds, or in the heat of battle. And so, to men whose understanding of warfare hinges on that type of experience, the use of magic (which most probably never seriously thought existed) is wild and terrifying. The fact that so many people have trouble believing and accepting what happened in that tent is what causes Brienne to flee for her life.

[Kittyhat]

I'm not going to go look through the thread...that's a bit much, so I'll take your word for it. Still my point remains. You attack their positions, so it stands to reason that they will attack yours.

And that's fair. I guess I'm just tired of this subject in general, this particular argument. No one's going to convince anyone else anyway. The battle lines are pretty well drawn at this point, the camps established.

[Darth Rivers]

Many people do have a hope against knights - other men-at-arms. But anyway, the concept of fair fighting doesn't apply when the odds aren't fair. 20k Renly's men vs 20k Stannis's men? Fight fair if you want respect. 20k vs 6k? Renly, go fuck yourself.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

As the Dragons have no control of being born. So if you got Dragons why not use em? Why compare it too Meli's baby (which I still don't see what's wrong)

I'm going to have to back off and say that I strongly disagree with your comparison and pretty much completely disagree with your premise entirely. We're not going to find common ground here.

[Winterfell is Burning]

You saw what Cersei did to the will of the lawful king and the man she duped people into believing was the father of her bastards. What makes anybody think that Stannis would've survived a trip to King's Landing or that Cersei would've listened to reason? Stannis's only real hope was to get an army and press his claim the same way that the Lannisters were trying to defend their theft of the throne.

Oh noes, he should have gone to King's Landing and talk it out, it would all work just fine.

[JKeats]

Except Stannis is not the lawful heir to the throne, Tommen is.

Sure, we know it differently, and probably a significant amount of people in Westeros suspect it, but aside from a raven mail smear campaign Stannis has never adequately addressed the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Cersei's children. Rather than running around killing his brother with shadowbabies and whatnot he should have hightailed it to KL to settle the matter once and for all.

A person can believe in good faith that Joffrey and Tommen are Robert's children. Stannis himself said as much to Davos that he does not hold such people to be traitors.

"Good men and true will fight for Joffrey, wrongly believing him the true king. A northman might even say the same of Robb Stark."

I understand your point, that from the perspective of an honest man wrongly believing Joffrey to be the true king, it is Stannis who is subverting long settled law for no good reason. Fair enough. But surely we the readers ought to know better. Especially since proof is indeed available should people open their eyes. Robert's bastard children, the book Jon Arryn and Ned Stark read, Ned Stark's unmatched reputation for honesty combined with his support of Stannis' claim.

Perhaps a reader just likes House Lannister and wishes them to prevail. Okay, understandable. But what a reader cannot do is claim in any seriousness is that Joffrey and Tommen are, as a matter of actual fact, under the laws of Westros, the rightful heirs of Robert Baratheon. We know that distinction goes to Stannis. How can we accept the laws of succession and not accept that he is the king? The only way out is to disregard the law, which you should only do if you have a good reason.

[Jem]

A person can believe in good faith that Joffrey and Tommen are Robert's children. Stannis himself said as much to Davos that he does not hold such people to be traitors.

"Good men and true will fight for Joffrey, wrongly believing him the true king. A northman might even say the same of Robb Stark."

I understand your point, that from the perspective of a honest man wrongly believing Joffrey to be the true king, it is Stannis who is subverting long settled law for no good reason. Fair enough. But surely we the readers ought to know better. Especially since proof is indeed available should people open their eyes. Robert's bastard children, the book Jon Arryn and Ned Stark read, Ned Stark's unmatched reputation for honesty combined with his support of Stannis' claim.

Perhaps a reader just likes House Lannister and wishes them to prevail. Okay, understandable. But what a reader cannot do is claim in any seriousness is that Joffrey and Tommen are, as a matter of actual fact, under the laws of Westros, the rightful heirs of Robert Baratheon. We know that distinction goes to Stannis. How can we accept the laws of succession and not accept that he is the king? The only way out is to disregard the law, which you should only do if you have a good reason.

What do you want me to do? Jump into the book and tell everyone that Cersei's children are bastards and Stannis is the rightful king? Yes, as a reader I 'know better', but there isn't much I can do about it. According to the law Stannis is Robert's heir, but according to what most characters in the story know, believe or choose to believe (and remember this is a story, I don't want you to hang me for treason) Tommen is Robert's rightful heir.

[Dr. Pepper]

Not really.. If I recall Stannis said that Mel was in the same room as him, she clearly didn't go out and pull some sneaky shit. When it came to Ser Cortnay, he's much more liable, but in the first instance he can reasonably claim ignorance. I don't think that ignorance is a non-context sensitive thing. Unless he knew that Mel had a plan to kill Renly in his tent then I think that he's less liable.

I don't think he can claim reasonable ignorance. Mel told him Renly was going to die and he didn't ask why. He also has these dreams/visions about it and he doesn't ask the expert in dreams and visions about what it all means. That's willful ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong Stannis supporter. I just don't think it's fair for any character's flaws or moral failures to be excused due to ignorance, especially when it's willful.

[Castel]

I don't think he can claim reasonable ignorance. Mel told him Renly was going to die and he didn't ask why. He also has these dreams/visions about it and he doesn't ask the expert in dreams and visions about what it all means. That's willful ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong Stannis supporter. I just don't think it's fair for any character's flaws or moral failures to be excused due to ignorance, especially when it's willful.

He had these visions later on. As for Mel telling him that Renly would die...I would think that before her powers were actually shown it would seem like soothsaying tbh. Those dreams are important when judging him on Ser Cortnay, but seeing as they happened as/after Renly was dying I don't see how they can count against him there.

[JKeats]

My basis for thinking Stannis did not know the specifics of the shadow assassins rests on his conversations with Davos. I do not believe Stannis would tell a lie, certainly not to Davos of all people.

This is a choice readers have to make, whether to trust in the honesty of a character, especially when that character's inner thoughts are never revealed. At any rate, I do not think Stannis lied when he spoke of Renly, Storm's End, his dreams, etc. Therefore I must conclude that he did not know about the shadow assassin, and moreover, that Stannis in fact expected to face Renly in battle the morning after the peach conference.

If you think otherwise, you must believe Stannis lied to Davos. Perhaps he did, though I find that notion absurd. Only GRRM knows for sure.

-edit-

Though I am quite convinced Stannis knows some kind of magic was involved with the deaths of Renly and Penrose. He seems to ascribe it to the will of god.

[Nymeria's]

Come now, am I supposed to remember faceless peons?!?

Just kidding. In all honesty, I'd simply forgotten, I really thought it was a boy for whatever reason.

That's right. If you can't remember every name of every house and every character in ALL the books, including the faceless ones then you too will be Drogon(ned). :laugh:

I am of the free folk. I bend the knee to no one. (Usually someone has said this by now, sorry if I am repeating. My king is dead anyway.)

[Dr. Pepper]

He had these visions later on. As for Mel telling him that Renly would die...I would think that before her powers were actually shown it would seem like soothsaying tbh. Those dreams are important when judging him on Ser Cortnay, but seeing as they happened as/after Renly was dying I don't see how they can count against him there.

I actually think we might both be confused about what the other is arguing. My stance is that Stannis is willfully ignorant after the fact. I agree that he probably didn't understand the method of assassination before it happened, but I still don't think that his initial ignorance is something we can use to excuse the fact that dark magic was used to kill his brother. If it can be proven that Stannis asked Mel how his brother would die and she lied to him, then I accept that as a valid excuse for not knowing. After all, we can't really control the honesty of other people, though we can control whether we choose to trust them or not.