Official Court of Law: Stannis Baratheon

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

How would you feel if every american citizen had a collar arround their neck with a small explosive device attached. If president Obama decided that the person in question was undesireable he could push a button and have that person's collar detonated. Wouldn't that be a great world to live in? No need for courts or trials, no running from the law or resisting arrest. Just one man, one button instant justice :D

If it took that man raising a huge army and caused starvation for a good section of the country under the basis, "I'm awesome, therefore I should be king," I'd be pissed Obama didn't put a hit on him sooner.

Also, your comparison doesn't work since Stannis doesn't have shadowbabies waiting everwhere as your bomb neck thing has. Your idea is a clear example creating fear and terror in a population to make them submit. No one in Westeros is particularly afraid of Stannis and shadowbabies.

I look at it in two ways, in universe it's clearly dishonorable, It breaks the social taboo on kin-slaying and the commonly held ideas of chivalry. Not only that but it involves sorcery fuled by a foreign god. Poll the population of Westeros, and 99% of them would call it an evil act

From my own moral perspective, it's a case of a man using deadly force in his own pursuit of power. There is no divine right of kings, the Iron throne is nobodys birthright and Stannis is no more destined to rule than anyone else. A man stabs his brother for a dollar it's cold blooded murder, why should it be any better if he kills him for a crown.

Actually, I'm pretty sure stabbing your brother for a dollar is cool if he is trying murder you for that dollar you own. It's called self-defense.

:agree: Why stan fans can't accept this is beyond me, it's the same resason why threatening to sacrifice edric is wrong

Completely different things.

Edric = innocent

Renly = more than happy to murder his brother, nephews, niece, and whoever else to take what he wants

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

[Lady of Long Lake]

1. Maleficium

1.1 It is the law to defend yourself and treason is punishable by death.

1.2 same as 1.2

Dismissed

2. Treason

2.1 Lord Stannis is Late King Robert’s rightfull heir by blood. Joffrey Waters called Baratheon is an abomination born of incest and a usurper.

2. 2 Lord Stannis is Late King Robert’s rightfull heir by blood. Joffrey Waters called Baratheon is an abomination born of incest and a usurper. Dolton was appointed by the usurper who has no real power.

Dismissed

3. Murder.

Six Counts:-

3.1 Lord Renly Baratheon was a traitor; the punishment for treason is death.

3.2 Ser Courtney Penrose was a traitor; the punishment for treason is death.

3.3 Lord Alester Florent was a traitor; the punishment for treason is death.

3.4 Lord Guncer Sunglass was a traitor; the punishment for treason is death.

3.5 The Lord of Bones alias “Rattleshirt” was a criminal; the punishment for it is death.

3.6 Three unnamed soldiers during the march to Winterfell were criminals; the punishment for it is death.

Dismissed

4. Torture

It was execution not torture.

Dismissed

5. Sacrilege

Two counts:-

5.1 Dragonstone is Lord Stannis seat. His rules but because of the freedom of religion guilty

5.2 The Weirwood are valuable Guity

Verdict Guilty of Sacrilege in 5 Sentence a monetary fine.Charges 1,2,3 & 4 are dismissed

This is my vote too. Monetary fine that would go directly to the Warde of the North.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Who is trying Stannis for these crimes? If It's a Westerosi court then It's going to follow their customs. Kinslaying and assasination are both seen as hugely immoral acts, and Stannis is guilty of both

If It's judged from a modern perspective, then Stannis had no right to the crown in the first place. People aren't born to rule because of who their parent's are. He didn't kill Renly out of self defence, if he was scared for his life he could have easily bent the knee. He killed him because he wanted power and his brother was standing in the way.

People were saying that anyhing goes in war so I listed attrocities was to see where people would draw the line. I never said that assassination was equal to everyhing on that list. That wasn't the point I was making.

As for him using it again, I refer you back to my Obama scenario. Would you trust the president with the ability to instantly kill Amercian citizens whenever he wanted for whatever reasons he could think of? If not then why is it ok for Stannis to wield such power?

:cheers: This is a very good post. From a Westerosi perspective, Stannis is guilty of kinslaying (not sure if that's inherently considered a "crime" or just taboo though) and apostasy. From a modern perspective, he's guilty of perpetuating a backward system of oppression.

Stannis is a great character because he straddles the line between hero and villain. He is capable of great evil and great good - one does not wash out the other, guys :cool4:

[Pod The Impaler]

:cheers: This is a very good post. From a Westerosi perspective, Stannis is guilty of kinslaying (not sure if that's inherently considered a "crime" or just taboo though) and apostasy. From a modern perspective, he's guilty of perpetuating a backward system of oppression.

Stannis is a great character because he straddles the line between hero and villain. He is capable of great evil and great good - one does not wash out the other, guys :cool4:

Yup. He's definitely testing the limits of the whole "the ends justifies the means" thing.

[Penguin king]

Oh, we are different then. I don't care about the superstitions of a bunch of medieval era peasants that take something for granted. If they have a problem with sorcery they can provide a good reason, otherwise I don't care.. I try to weigh the good of the action versus the bad, and I know which comes out ahead here. Appeals to popularity, appeals to some notion of evil that has no back-up, all of those are either outright fallacies or pointless arguments to me.

As for chivalry, I can't imagine anything more unchivalrous than usurping the throne of two of your relatives, planning to kill them so you can be king. Renly lost any right he had to be treated as anything but a criminal.Nor do I see chivalry as particularly important when your life is at stake and the other guy is perfectly willing to kill you and is overwhelming superior. No doubt knights thought that crossbows or cannon were unchivalrous because it gave the weaker guys a better chance oh, I mean, it was "cowardly". Robb was perfectly fine ambushing and killing Lannister soldiers. Why does no one complain about that?

You do not owe rebels chivalry. You owe them nothing, the only reason any rebel is every treated well is that the government cannot just kill him offhand and so have to treat with him lest the war never end. When they can kill them outright, they do. See: Ned's brother, Aerys' kidnapper, Rhaenys, Robb, Lord Karstark, Janos Slynt (no one complains about that one) etc.

As for kin-slaying, even if it applied to traitors it's still another claim that is taken for granted.

So your argument boils down to 'two wrongs make a right' then? or Is it 'Renly started it first'? Renly went against custom in seizing the throne over his older brother so Stannis can throw all out all the rules of chivalry and and all the cultural taboos in dealing with him. Don't worry what the peasants or the septons think. What do they know about good and evil anyhow.

Did you not just use Westeros' mores to justify your dislike of Stannis?So you use their belief in chivalry but deny their belief in birthright and how it affects their actions?

You're completely missing the point here. I said my judgement was from two seperate perspectives.

Perspective 1 the westerosi point of veiw: He has a birthright, but he completely acted against social norms in trying to obtain it

Perspective 2 My own moral veiw point. Westerosi culture is irrelevant but he had no more right to rule than anyone else and clearly turned to cold blooded murder in order to seize power for himself

It's two seperate arguments from two very different starting points. understand now?

[Mikken]

^^^ Agree

So by this logic you are going to burn yourself alive after sentencing someone to burn, right?

I do hope you realize the hypocrisy of what you are saying.

If you execute a murderer, are you guilty of murder?

Stannis is a religous fanatic who burns multiple people. The only way someone who burns other people can be brought to justice is through his own burning. If Stannis had punished people in ways that fit their crimes, then he wouldn't need to be burned.

[E-Ro]

^^^ Agree

If you execute a murderer, are you guilty of murder?

Stannis is a religous fanatic who burns multiple people. The only way someone who burns other people can be brought to justice is through his own burning. If Stannis had punished people in ways that fit their crimes, then he wouldn't need to be burned.

In westeros Betraying your liege lord and going against his command is among the most heinous of crimes. And you are saying it yet again "The only way someone who burns other people can be brought to justice is through his own burning." If the court burns stannis this court should burn as well. Lest we are all hypocrites.

[E-Ro]

So your argument boils down to 'two wrongs make a right' then? or Is it 'Renly started it first'? Renly went against custom in seizing the throne over his older brother so Stannis can throw all out all the rules of chivalry and and all the cultural taboos in dealing with him. Don't worry what the peasants or the septons think. What do they know about good and evil anyhow.

No, the argument is that killing one man and avoiding the deaths of others is the preferred option to a huge battle and numerous deaths and wounded men. Renly was guilty of treason and you completely ignored my example of rhanyra, she was also killed by her own brother for attempting to take the throne, we have precedence. That should be the end of this but for some reason it was ignored.

[Penguin king]

No, the argument is that killing one man and avoiding the deaths of others is the preferred option to a huge battle and numerous deaths and wounded men. Renly was guilty of treason and you completely ignored my example of rhanyra, she was also killed by her own brother for attempting to take the throne, we have precedence. That should be the end of this but for some reason it was ignored.

I'm not sure how relevent she is considering she was the elder child, her father named her his heir, and she was executed rather than assassinated. Seems to me your precedent is that Renly should have had Stannis killed.

[E-Ro]

I'm not sure how relevent she is considering she was the elder child, her father named her his heir, and she was executed rather than assassinated. Seems to me your precedent is that Renly should have had Stannis killed.

Is there a difference? She was not the heir according to targ succession, she was killed by her brother, when it comes to treason kin slaying does not seem to apply, see Robert baratheon vs rhagear.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Is there a difference? She was not the heir according to targ succession, she was killed by her brother, when it comes to treason kin slaying does not seem to apply, see Robert baratheon vs rhagear.

Actually, Rhaenyra was the heir. After Aegon II killed her Targaryen succesion became the way it is now.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I'm not sure how relevent she is considering she was the elder child, her father named her his heir, and she was executed rather than assassinated. Seems to me your precedent is that Renly should have had Stannis killed.

You mean exactly what he was trying to do (albeit a different tactic and failure).

[E-Ro]

Actually, Rhaenyra was the heir. After Aegon II killed her Targaryen succesion became the way it is now.

Classic case of victor making the rules then, in that case, Stannis won what he says goes. I feel im repeating myself at this point, renly and stannis were at war, renly had a superior force and would have killed stannis just as fast as stannis killed him. By assassinating renly not only did stannis save lives but he accomplished his goals. Kin slaying does not enter into it, Treason has always been punished by death. Always.

”Rise ser Davos,” Stannis commanded. “I have missed you ser. I have need of good counsel, and you never gave me less. So tell me true—what is the penalty for treason?” “Treason?” He finally managed, weakly. “What else would you call it, to deny your king and seek to steal his rightful throne. I ask you again—what is the penalty for treason under the law?” Davos had no choice but to answer. “Death,” he said. “The penalty is death, your grace.” “It has always been so. I am not… I am not a cruel man, ser Davos. You know me. Have known me long, this is not my decree. It has always been so, since Aegons day and before. Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the vulture king, grand master Hareth… Traitors have always paid with their lives… even Rhaneyra Targeryan Se was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitors death for trying to usurp her brothers crown. It is law, Davos. Not cruelty.”

[Penguin king]

Is there a difference? She was not the heir according to targ succession, she was killed by her brother, when it comes to treason kin slaying does not seem to apply, see Robert baratheon vs rhagear.

Um she was though. The laws preventing women from inheriting were brought in after her death. The civil war continued with her son as her heir, and the targaryen line proceded through him. Aegon II on the other hand seems to have gone down in infamy.

[E-Ro]

You mean exactly what he was trying to do (albeit a different tactic and failure).

Exactly, im not sure what is so hard about this. Renly says "see to it no dishonor is done to his corpse, i wont have his body paraded around on a pike" they were both trying to kill each other, stannis killed renly first.

If might makes right, stannis had more might and so is not guilty. If we follow the laws of succession(the very same laws renly didnt give two shits about) then Stannis is heir and as such not guilty, he was merely punishing a traitor.

[E-Ro]

Um she was though. The laws preventing women from inheriting were brought in after her death. The civil war continued with her son as her heir, and the targaryen line proceded through him. Aegon II on the other hand seems to have gone down in infamy.

the point stands, there is a precedence for killing your family in dynastic fighting. The manner in which they die matters not. The shadowbaby is the most humane way of waging war we have seen in the entire series, from aegons dragons to tywins terror tactics.

[Penguin king]

You mean exactly what he was trying to do (albeit a different tactic and failure).

Yeah, by asking him for his support and offering him Storms end.

Stannis is the one that chose to fight a battle he had no honorable way of winning. He could have bent the Knee, but power was more important to him than family it seems.

[E-Ro]

Yeah, by asking him for his support and offering him Storms end.

Stannis is the one that chose to fight a battle he had no honorable way of winning. He could have bent the Knee, but power was more important to him than family it seems.

the same goes for renly, Stannis gave him a far better offer, all his positions at court and heir? Way more then he deserved.

[The Drunkard]

the same goes for renly, Stannis gave him a far better offer, all his positions at court and heir? Way more then he deserved.

Hard truths cut one way apparently, Ser E-Ro.

[Penguin king]

the point stands, there is a precedence for killing your family in dynastic fighting. The manner in which they die matters not. The shadowbaby is the most humane way of waging war we have seen in the entire series, from aegons dragons to tywins terror tactics.

Well yeah. It's a precedent in the sense that it's happend before. that doesn't make it right though. It's like saying that now Lord Frey has set the pecendent of breaking the guest right everyone is allowed to do it.

As for being humane, the most humane way to deal with Renly would have been to work with him in brining the Lannisters to justice then try and settle the succession issue with diplomacy. Stannis is the one who brought the Battle to Renly in the first place.