The Realm will be best off with Stannis as King

[Mikkel]

The worst thing would be his religious zealotry.

Stannis is no religious zealot. His wife is, and Melisandre is, but Stannis is not. He's using Mel - and she's using him - but he's never given me the impression he is actually buying into the religious part of it. In fact, Stannis appears to have no time for the gods at all, having lost all faith when he watched his parents drown.

I think Stannis could make a decent King, but I don't think he'll get the chance - if he ever sits the throne, any series of events that put him there will mean that the Kingdom is in such dire straits that Stannis won't get half a chance to prove he's any good.

[mrunderhill]

The man, who would have made the best king is Tywin. Quite frankly he is a man, who could have united the kingdoms and brought them prosperity. Stannis like Ned may have been a good king in a different time. If Stannis was the heir of longstanding royal family, with no problems concerning the succession or the loyalty of the realms he may have done a reasonable job. Now, though his strict laws and inability to spire love would just lead to rebellion.

[Morienthar]

No the best people to take the throne are already dead.

People like

Maester Aemon

Rheagar

Joer Mormont

Robb(Yes he made mistakes but he'd have been a better king than his namesake was).

Ned.

At this point the best thing for the realm would be some sort of Pan Hellenic league that King Phillip II had installed for the greek people.

[Olligarchy]

The man, who would have made the best king is Tywin. Quite frankly he is a man, who could have united the kingdoms and brought them prosperity. Stannis like Ned may have been a good king in a different time. If Stannis was the heir of longstanding royal family, with no problems concerning the succession or the loyalty of the realms he may have done a reasonable job. Now, though his strict laws and inability to spire love would just lead to rebellion.

:agree: Right there with you man!

[Morienthar]

The man, who would have made the best king is Tywin. Quite frankly he is a man, who could have united the kingdoms and brought them prosperity. Stannis like Ned may have been a good king in a different time. If Stannis was the heir of longstanding royal family, with no problems concerning the succession or the loyalty of the realms he may have done a reasonable job. Now, though his strict laws and inability to spire love would just lead to rebellion.

:agree: With Tyrion as his hand(Best way to deny him the Rock) and Jaime at the Rock,Tywin would be the most secure King in Westeros.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Some times you have to let some things pass, and real justice has to be tempered with compassion. Stannis does not understand that.

“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy."

Great analysis. I completely agree with you. Though, to be fair, we have to admit that he has learned to compromise a little.

Stannis is the most Targaryen-like Baratheon in the sense that he seems to resemble his great-great-grandfather Maekar Targaryen in temper much more than, say, the usual Baratheon (Robert, Renly, Mya Stone, Edric Storm etc.). Only Gendry seems to resemble Stannis character-wise despite the fact he resembles Robert/Renly physically.

I've never thought about that, but now that you've mentioned it, he does resemble Maekar a lot.

[Fat Mac]

Stannis is no religious zealot. His wife is, and Melisandre is, but Stannis is not. He's using Mel - and she's using him - but he's never given me the impression he is actually buying into the religious part of it. In fact, Stannis appears to have no time for the gods at all, having lost all faith when he watched his parents drown.

I think Stannis could make a decent King, but I don't think he'll get the chance - if he ever sits the throne, any series of events that put him there will mean that the Kingdom is in such dire straits that Stannis won't get half a chance to prove he's any good.

This, basically.

Stannis was the best option of the Five Kings. Robb knew nothing about politics (as evidenced), and Renly was a pompous ass who liked the idea of being King and who sought the throne for selfish reasons. I don't think I need to mention Joffrey and Balon.

However, Stannis would be unpopular with the lords of Westeros. I think this is based in part because Stannis recognizes merit more than birth. Also, Lords would be mad because they couldn't get away with half their shit with Stannis in charge.

[Fire Eater]

Stannis is no religious zealot. His wife is, and Melisandre is, but Stannis is not. He's using Mel - and she's using him - but he's never given me the impression he is actually buying into the religious part of it. In fact, Stannis appears to have no time for the gods at all, having lost all faith when he watched his parents drown.

I think Stannis could make a decent King, but I don't think he'll get the chance - if he ever sits the throne, any series of events that put him there will mean that the Kingdom is in such dire straits that Stannis won't get half a chance to prove he's any good.

But that doesn't stop him from burning people, like at the village. Aerys did it, and it is used as proof of his madness, yet Stannis is of sound mind and Stannis fans ignore that.

[Fat Mac]

But that doesn't stop him from burning people, like at the village. Aerys did it, and it is used as proof of his madness, yet Stannis is of sound mind and Stannis fans ignore that.

Doesn't Stannis burn criminals and traitors?

Aerys burned Lords for fun, who were innocent of crimes (Rickard Stark). Stannis uses it as a form of execution.

[Morienthar]

Doesn't Stannis burn criminals and traitors?

Aerys burned Lords for fun, who were innocent of crimes (Rickard Stark). Stannis uses it as a form of execution.

A bit too cruel for my taste,Chopping off their heads would suffice as execution,Buring doesn't always go as planned.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Stannis was the best option of the Five Kings. Robb knew nothing about politics (as evidenced), and Renly was a pompous ass who liked the idea of being King and who sought the throne for selfish reasons. I don't think I need to mention Joffrey and Balon.

I wouldn't go that far. Stannis was the rightful heir, there is no doubt about that. But there is a lot to be said about a king's personality, and IMO it would've been easier for Robb to learn about politics, than for Stannis to change his self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude.

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

At this point the best thing for the realm would be some sort of Pan Hellenic league that King Phillip II had installed for the greek people.

It was more he forced it upon them for his own gain than he "installed" it "for" the Greeks.

This, basically.

Stannis was the best option of the Five Kings. Robb knew nothing about politics (as evidenced), and Renly was a pompous ass who liked the idea of being King and who sought the throne for selfish reasons. I don't think I need to mention Joffrey and Balon.

However, Stannis would be unpopular with the lords of Westeros. I think this is based in part because Stannis recognizes merit more than birth. Also, Lords would be mad because they couldn't get away with half their shit with Stannis in charge.

Renly would have been an infinitely better king than Stannis.

[Fire Eater]

Doesn't Stannis burn criminals and traitors?

Aerys burned Lords for fun, who were innocent of crimes (Rickard Stark). Stannis uses it as a form of execution.

So he had no other option for execution other than burning them alive?

Aerys burned his Hand Chelsted for not going along with Aerys's plan and throwing off the Hand's chain, and Stannis burned his Hand, Alester Florent, for his letter.

[Mikkel]

But that doesn't stop him from burning people, like at the village. Aerys did it, and it is used as proof of his madness, yet Stannis is of sound mind and Stannis fans ignore that.

Indeed it doesn't, and I'm not trying to excuse his burning of people - it's an unnecessarily cruel form of execution, though Dany does the same to MMD (and that's nok OK either). That he's burning them despite not really buying into the religious significance of said burning doesn't exactly make him look better. There is still a huge difference about the methods, reasons and applications of "burning people" between Stannis, Aerys or even Dany though.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

In complete disagreement.

Stannis would be a terrible king.

Slightly better than Joffrey, but worst than nearly everyone else. The worst thing would be his religious zealotry. The realm has the Seven and the Old Gods coexisting in harmony, with some tolerance for other foreign religions. His barbaric actions in Dragonstone, burning the sept (and once with historical significance, on top!) and burning the people who opposed alive would cause endless wars in Westeros. Just imagine what would happened in KL when he tried to turn the Great Sept of Baelor into a temple of R'hllor.

Also, his strict interpretation of law would make the realm bleed. Davos was content with having his fingers cut, but he was one of a kind. Most people would have rebelled, in his stead. Some times you have to let some things pass, and real justice has to be tempered with compassion. Stannis does not understand that.

In AGOT we learn that Stannis pushed in the Smal Council to forbid whoring. That's another example of how bad Stannis would be as a king. In a place like Westeros it's impossible to impose this ruling, which would dribe Stannis mad and send him into a crusade to geld all the offenders.

Rulers that care for the people are the best ones. Rulers that care for themselves are acceptable, since many times their best interest will coincide with the commoners'. But Stannis would be of the worst kind. The ones that want to impose a particular interpretation of law and morality that is not shared by his subjects, and won't hesitate to punish harshly the ones that do not obey him without reserves.

Love this analysis!

Stannis is the most Targaryen-like Baratheon in the sense that he seems to resemble his great-great-grandfather Maekar Targaryen in temper much more than, say, the usual Baratheon (Robert, Renly, Mya Stone, Edric Storm etc.). Only Gendry seems to resemble Stannis character-wise despite the fact he resembles Robert/Renly physically.

I never thought of that but he does show many of the signs of the mad Targaryens.

Stannis is no religious zealot. His wife is, and Melisandre is, but Stannis is not. He's using Mel - and she's using him - but he's never given me the impression he is actually buying into the religious part of it.

And yet he commits horrible sacrifices based solely on visions from Melisandre. Stannis may not believe it all but he believes enough about Mel's powers and religion to agree to her demands even as it alienates him from the very people he professes he wants to save. All while complaining that no one loves him. Very unkingly.

[joluoto]

Only if every other living soul in Westeros is dead.

[Mikkel]

And yet he commits horrible sacrifices based solely on visions from Melisandre.

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, really!), but hasn't he only burned convicted criminals so far? Like I said, it's not a good method of execution, but there's still a difference between that and straight-out sacrificing otherwise innocent people.

[Nictarion]

Indeed it doesn't, and I'm not trying to excuse his burning of people - it's an unnecessarily cruel form of execution, though Dany does the same to MMD (and that's nok OK either). That he's burning them despite not really buying into the religious significance of said burning doesn't exactly make him look better. There is still a huge difference about the methods, reasons and applications of "burning people" between Stannis, Aerys or even Dany though.

I think burning the woman who murdered your unborn child out of revenge, and a slave master responsible for unimaginable amounts of grief and suffering is a little different than burning people as human sacrifices. And lets not forget Stannis was ready to burn his own nephew to help his cause.

[Winter's Knight]

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, really!), but hasn't he only burned convicted criminals so far? Like I said, it's not a good method of execution, but there's still a difference between that and straight-out sacrificing otherwise innocent people.

Where does one draw the line though? Starving men who ate a dead comrade? A Hand who covertly offers a rival king a marriage treaty? A lord who refused to serve after Stannis burnt his gods?

This man is worse than a religious fanatic- he's an opportunist who has no problems crushing other faiths while having no convictions of his own. The very fact that he does not believe in the Red God makes him much worse than Aeron or the High Septon- they at least believe what they preach.

[Young Nan]

I'm pretty neutral towards Stannis, I think he's better than Joffrey or Aerys.

I think he'd do an OK job. People exaggerage his inflexibility- I think there have been a lot of occasions where he has shown extreme flexibility, like when he totally changed his plans and went to help the watch, or just the fact that he adopted a new religion when he saw a benefit in doing so.

With Davos as hand, I think he may be able to do a decent job- Davos always seems to knock some reason into him when others can't.