Official Court of Law: Stannis Baratheon

[The Drunkard]

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.

Catelyn tried the same thing, and Renly denied her. He didn't want to vote, he wanted to be king, and because his "pack" was larger he didn't need to negotiate with anyone.

[Associate Maester]

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.

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?

So the burden is on Stannis then? He should have bent the knee to Renly? So self-defense is okay for others, but not Stannis? Renly is the one going against law and precedent.. He got killed first via a brilliant weapon..

[Associate Maester]

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.

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.

Again, what do war and honor have to do with each other? It reminds me of Penrose trying to egg Stannis into single combat and Stannis is like...yeah not going to fall for that. He is a strategist and tactician. War and battle hinges on those factors. Not honor.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

It doesn't surprise me...but Stannis is sure getting a lot of slack.

[Ame]

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

Enemy leaders are not entitled to trials; if they surrender then killing them becomes a crime, if they make peace killing them becomes a crime. If you really feel so strongly about drones can I ask if you voted Obama or Romney? Beca

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

If you are bringing in modern morality then Stannis saved hundreds of thousands of people from starvation by killing Renly, the lives of his men by killing Renly, and the lives of those Renly agreed would die to shatter his formation. No matter how you cut it Stannis was at war and used a more effective version of Obama's favorite technology; technology I should add that Romney didn't campaign against because Romney knows it is immoral to make the lives of the soldiers he wants to lead secondary to scoring political points. The problems drones have with collateral damage don't exist for shadow babies either.

Both for self defense reasons and reasons of being in a state of war Stannis is justified.

Just to clarify on chivalry

Battle of Stanford Bridge-King Harold had his archers target Harold Hadradaa and his brother Tostig

Battle of Hastings-William the Conqueror has his archers target King Harold

Siege of Antioch- Bohemond had an agent inside the city betray it

Siege of Paris - English target Joan of Arc, successfully capture her breaking the attack

Battle of Pavia- The Spanish target and capture Francois I of France

Targeting enemy leaders and use of spies was done in medieval warfare whenever possible. Even in Westeros Jaime tried to end the North's rising by targetting Robb Stark. There are many many many more examples of targeting the enemy leadership in the age of chivalry; chivalry was a dead letter anyway with knights having much more in common with Tony Soprano then with Sir Lancelot or King Arthur.

[Castel]

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.

We have rules about privacy and safety. When a person breaks them they no longer have the right of them-within certain bounds of course.

How many times am I going to have to say this: Renly was a self-confessed traitor, he was not part of the contract, he had no right to "custom". In fact, his inclusion in custom was never a moral issue like say gassing civilians is today.

It is up to the king to decide to treat rebels a certain way to end the war. It is not a right. It is something he does because he has limits on his power or will to fight. Law trumps social rules that may not even apply. Renly was literally a dead man walking it's just that he had a big enough army to pretend otherwise.

But yes, fuck the peasants and septons. When they come up with a better reason than "ooh, dark magic" call me.

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?

Uh, no. You don't get to selectively judge someone for breaking the laws of their society and then turn around and claim that you dislike them for thinking like someone in their society would. Well you can dislike them but it's an uneven judgement. You cannot just pick and choose. If Westerosi social mores affect you then you cannot just ignore them later. If they don't then why are you bringing them up?

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.

Diplomacy? Diplomacy he says. Did you read the scene with Renly? Renly does not give A FUCK about diplomacy. Like, he has literally made his terms clear and is done with it.He has all the chips and he knows it, he is not going to change his mind. There can be no negotiation. He rejected Robb's offer when Robb was in a much better position to challenge him. He would have swatted Stannis. At best Stannis pretends to yield but I don't think that you consider that honorable. Why would Renly unite with someone that was trouble and only had like 1500 men (I can't remember)?

The most humane way? What is this? So the most humane way to deal with a shameless rebel that is planning on killing at least one king and thousands of men doing their perceived duty is to just give him whatever he wants and then hope for scraps. See, this is what happens when you stick to a very hard viewpoint and have to bend over backwards to defend it. Stannis cannot win in this situation, and we all know it, but the proclaimed morals force you to propose clearly futile solutions in order to maintain that he is wrong.

[Penguin king]

Enemy leaders are not entitled to trials; if they surrender then killing them becomes a crime, if they make peace killing them becomes a crime. If you really feel so strongly about drones can I ask if you voted Obama or Romney? Beca

Actually, I'm English. I used Obama in my hypothetical cause I figured more people would get the reference. For what it matters I voted for a Lib Dem candidate in the last general election, though it seems like all our major parties are pretty interchangable these days

Back on topic, Renly was only an enemy because Stannis made him so. Maybe if he'd worked closer with his brothers from the start instead of skulking off to dragonstone the Lannisters could have been delt with before Robert died. You can hardly blame renly for deciding to take matters into his own hands with Stannis nowhere to be seen.

If you are bringing in modern morality then Stannis saved hundreds of thousands of people from starvation by killing Renly, the lives of his men by killing Renly, and the lives of those Renly agreed would die to shatter his formation. No matter how you cut it Stannis was at war and used a more effective version of Obama's favorite technology; technology I should add that Romney didn't campaign against because Romney knows it is immoral to make the lives of the soldiers he wants to lead secondary to scoring political points. The problems drones have with collateral damage don't exist for shadow babies either. Both for self defense reasons and reasons of being in a state of war Stannis is justified.

The food embago ended because the Tyrells decided to side with the Lannisters. Somehow I don't think that's what Stannis was planning when he had renly killed.

Just to clarify on chivalry

Battle of Stanford Bridge-King Harold had his archers target Harold Hadradaa and his brother Tostig

Battle of Hastings-William the Conqueror has his archers target King Harold

Siege of Antioch- Bohemond had an agent inside the city betray it

Siege of Paris - English target Joan of Arc, successfully capture her breaking the attack

Battle of Pavia- The Spanish target and capture Francois I of France

Targeting enemy leaders and use of spies was done in medieval warfare whenever possible. Even in Westeros Jaime tried to end the North's rising by targetting Robb Stark. There are many many many more examples of targeting the enemy leadership in the age of chivalry; chivalry was a dead letter anyway with knights having much more in common with Tony Soprano then with Sir Lancelot or King Arthur.

Just because it happened in history doesn't make it right. The medieval church was strongly against catholic nations going to war, but we all know how well that was stuck to. Likewise I could give you a long list of serial killers from the last 50 years, but I don't think that would prove that indiscriminate slaughter is an ethical way to vent your frustrations.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Actually, I'm English. I used Obama in my hypothetical cause I figured more people would get the reference. For what it matters I voted for a Lib Dem candidate in the last general election, though it seems like all our major parties are pretty interchangable these days

1 Back on topic, Renly was only an enemy because Stannis made him so. Maybe if he'd worked closer with his brothers from the start instead of skulking off to dragonstone the Lannisters could have been delt with before Robert died. You can hardly blame renly for deciding to take matters into his own hands with Stannis nowhere to be seen.

2 The food embago ended because the Tyrells decided to side with the Lannisters. Somehow I don't think that's what Stannis was planning when he had renly killed.

Just because it happened in history doesn't make it right. The medieval church was strongly against catholic nations going to war, but we all know how well that was stuck to. Likewise I could give you a long list of serial killers from the last 50 years, but I don't think that would prove that indiscriminate slaughter is an ethical way to vent your frustrations.

1. Are you sure about that? Renly thought Joffery was his nephew. He simply didn't give a fuck. I see no reason to believe he would have sided with Stannis if Stannis had tried to work with him before hand.

2. Which ended sooner because Stannis hurried to KL instead of taking his sweet time. Admittedly, it was not exactly intentional on Stannis's part. I'm not even sure he realized what Renly was doing.

[Associate Maester]

Actually, I'm English. I used Obama in my hypothetical cause I figured more people would get the reference. For what it matters I voted for a Lib Dem candidate in the last general election, though it seems like all our major parties are pretty interchangable these days

Back on topic, Renly was only an enemy because Stannis made him so. Maybe if he'd worked closer with his brothers from the start instead of skulking off to dragonstone the Lannisters could have been delt with before Robert died. You can hardly blame renly for deciding to take matters into his own hands with Stannis nowhere to be seen.

The food embago ended because the Tyrells decided to side with the Lannisters. Somehow I don't think that's what Stannis was planning when he had renly killed.

Just because it happened in history doesn't make it right. The medieval church was strongly against catholic nations going to war, but we all know how well that was stuck to. Likewise I could give you a long list of serial killers from the last 50 years, but I don't think that would prove that indiscriminate slaughter is an ethical way to vent your frustrations.

I hope logical consistency isn't something you are striving for here with your arguments (you are not consistent). I fail to see how in your reasoning Stannis bears responsibility and Renly does not. It is a form of "baby Jesus Renly" syndrome (obscure fandom term there). Renly is the one that broke Westerosi law and custom by going against the rightful king aka his elder brother (the younger must obey the older). Do you take issue at all with Robb's tactics against Jaime? Honorable warfare is a fantasy.

I fail to see how tactically and morally thousands of dead and dying soldiers would be somehow preferable to the death of the commander. Metaphorically (and sometimes literally) the cutting off the head of the enemy is a tried and true tactic.

[Penguin king]

Uh, no. You don't get to selectively judge someone for breaking the laws of their society and then turn around and claim that you dislike them for thinking like someone in their society would. Well you can dislike them but it's an uneven judgement. You cannot just pick and choose. If Westerosi social mores affect you then you cannot just ignore them later. If they don't then why are you bringing them up?

It's two completely seperate arguments. How are you having such trouble grasping this. The topic asks us to judge Stannis, but it doesn't say by whose standards, so I made 2 judgements; one by Westerosi standards and one by my own. If you took time to read what i wrote you'd realise i'm not picking at choosing at all.

Argument 1

IF westerosi culture = true THEN Stannis has a right to the throne BUT he's also guilty of Kinslaying and Assassination which are both Taboo in westerosi society

Argument 2

IF westerosi culture = false THEN Stannis has no right to the Thone THEREFORE Renly commited no treason, and his murder was simply a power grab on Stannis's part.

Do you follow that? I changed the inital premise each time so the arguments are mutally exclusive. ok?

Here's what i'm NOT saying "stannis commited a cultural taboo AND he's got no right to the throne" If i made that argument then yes i would be picking and choosing, but that's NOT what i'm saying.

I'm sorry for ignoring the rest of your post, but I really wanna make sure my point comes accross this time.

[MoscQuetier]

I fail to see how tactically and morally thousands of dead and dying soldiers would be somehow preferable to the death of the commander. Metaphorically (and sometimes literally) the cutting off the head of the enemy is a tried and true tactic.

It's not about morals... it's about honour, and without honour, we're nothing but animals. I would die in battle one thousand times, before murdering someone out of a combat. In the combat, you are willing to kill or being killed, but as a man. But outside of it, it is just... wrong. That's also why we don't sentence people who kill in a war. It's not right, but it is honourable.

One should always search peace, but if can't be peace, then fight like a man, and don't hide behind something else, like magic or something like that. That's the line between men and children

[E-Ro]

It's not about morals... it's about honour, and without honour, we're nothing but animals. I would die in battle one thousand times, before murdering someone out of a combat. In the combat,

:drunk: We cant all be such paragons of war and honor! :lmao:

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

It's not about morals... it's about honour, and without honour, we're nothing but animals. I would die in battle one thousand times, before murdering someone out of a combat. In the combat, you are willing to kill or being killed, but as a man. But outside of it, it is just... wrong. That's also why we don't sentence people who kill in a war. It's not right, but it is honourable.

One should always search peace, but if can't be peace, then fight like a man, and don't hide behind something else, like magic or something like that. That's the line between men and children

We also don't sentence people who order or commit assassinations in war. For example, Obama and the Navy Seals who took out Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was not on a battlefield. He was in his home. The President ordered him dead and the Navy Seals carried it out. I don't see anyone trying to claim Obama was wrong for ordering the hit.

[Tagganaro]

It's not about morals... it's about honour, and without honour, we're nothing but animals. I would die in battle one thousand times, before murdering someone out of a combat. In the combat, you are willing to kill or being killed, but as a man. But outside of it, it is just... wrong. That's also why we don't sentence people who kill in a war. It's not right, but it is honourable.

One should always search peace, but if can't be peace, then fight like a man, and don't hide behind something else, like magic or something like that. That's the line between men and children

You'd die once

[Associate Maester]

It's not about morals... it's about honour, and without honour, we're nothing but animals. I would die in battle one thousand times, before murdering someone out of a combat. In the combat, you are willing to kill or being killed, but as a man. But outside of it, it is just... wrong. That's also why we don't sentence people who kill in a war. It's not right, but it is honourable.

One should always search peace, but if can't be peace, then fight like a man, and don't hide behind something else, like magic or something like that. That's the line between men and children

Honor is a nice sentiment. And, as I keep saying. It doesn't win wars. Lining up and shooting at one another in an open field might be honorable, but incredibly stupid. Peace is often preferable and sometimes war is necessary. Stannis, for instance has never claimed to be honorable. Davos calls him honorable. Stannis notes that he gave up any sense of honor when he chose family over his liege.

[E-Ro]

We also don't sentence people who order or commit assassinations in war. For example, Obama and the Navy Seals who took out Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was not on a battlefield. He was in his home. The President ordered him dead and the Navy Seals carried it out. I don't see anyone trying to claim Obama was wrong for ordering the hit.

Because that would be complete bullshit. But when Stannis does it "HUH!! OMG STOP TRAFFIC!" Its really funny, i understand now what stannis should have done, he should have gone braveheart on renlys army of 20k and killed them all singlehandedly, its the only way to be honorable brah.

[Associate Maester]

It's not about morals... it's about honour, and without honour, we're nothing but animals. I would die in battle one thousand times, before murdering someone out of a combat. In the combat, you are willing to kill or being killed, but as a man. But outside of it, it is just... wrong. That's also why we don't sentence people who kill in a war. It's not right, but it is honourable.

One should always search peace, but if can't be peace, then fight like a man, and don't hide behind something else, like magic or something like that. That's the line between men and children

I suppose, if you are concerned with honor you don't favor your country's military using planes or technology that the opposing side might not possess?

[Associate Maester]

Because that would be complete bullshit. But when Stannis does it "HUH!! OMG STOP TRAFFIC!" Its really funny, i understand now what stannis should have done, he should have gone braveheart on renlys army of 20k and killed them all singlehandedly, its the only way to be honorable brah.

Nope thousands would've been killed and Stannis would've been blamed for that too. :bang: This line of argument in regards to killing Renly is always "damned if he did, damned if he didn't."

[Penguin king]

1. Are you sure about that? Renly thought Joffery was his nephew. He simply didn't give a fuck. I see no reason to believe he would have sided with Stannis if Stannis had tried to work with him before hand.

2. Which ended sooner because Stannis hurried to KL instead of taking his sweet time. Admittedly, it was not exactly intentional on Stannis's part. I'm not even sure he realized what Renly was doing.

1. Renly declared himself king for pretty much the same reasons Robb did. The Lannisters killed his Brother and Joffrey was their puppet. He might have believed Joffrey was Roberts heir, but he knew who was really running the show. Sure stannis was above him in succession, but He was the one with the holdings and connections to raise an army whereas Stannis was still hiding on dragonstone, If he was going to take the throne by right of conquest why give it to his unpopular older brother.

2. Like I I say, it's not as if "I must kill renly so that the pesants may eat" was ever running through his mind.

[E-Ro]

I suppose, if you are concerned with honor you don't favor your country's military using planes or technology that the opposing side might not possess?

No, our military does not use such things! Our soldiers march out there in nothing but diapers 300 style and engage the enemy in hand to hand with nothing but their fists. Each soldier is weighed and he is put up against an opponent of the same weight, that way no one fights a bigger man as that would be an unfair advantage.

Its not like we spend tons of money to assure our brave men and woman have the best advantage possible in wars and the best shot at surviving, internet tough guys will tell you all about it, from the safety and convenience of their computers.