Would Stannis be better off without Melisandre?

[Toxspecific]

He doesn't really worship the red god. He's like agnostic in that regard. Or, he knows it exists as some sort of weird power/entity and knows its power but doesn't necessarily worship it.

As for Mel leaving, which I think she will, I do think he'd be better off.

[therealbando]

Whenever there`s a scene with Stannis receiving advice from Davos and Mel I always imagine Davos on his right shoulder being the angel and Mel on his left shoulder being the devil.

Mel is the only reason that I don`t support Stannis full time. I don`t trust such a fanatical character.

As for the question would Stannis be better off? I`d say no, because of Renly and Storm`s End.

[GallowsKnight]

Without Melisandre, the best Stannis could hope for is being bitter man on a worthless patch of rock that proclaims himself king of the the Seven Kingdoms while anyone with soldiers is too busy with actually relevant threats to crush him like an ant. Dragonstone claims itself as the true seat of the Seven Kingdoms for generations, effectively making it like Taiwan without powerful allies, or a profitable tech sector.

This is correct, except...

A lot can/will happen while he sits on that rock.

Mance Rayder at the Wall. Euron Crowseye attacking the Reach. Aegon Targaryan landing in the Stormlands. Varys with a crossbow waiting in Renly's chambers.

Stannis could capitalize on any of those moments with the Royal Navy and his 5,000men. And if Renly dies at any point he gains all his bannermen.

[King Tyrion I]

Whenever there`s a scene with Stannis receiving advice from Davos and Mel I always imagine Davos on his right shoulder being the angel and Mel on his left shoulder being the devil.

I agree to that. Mel plays Stannis. She uses him to her ends not to his.

[Draco_Dracul]

This is correct, except...

A lot can/will happen while he sits on that rock.

Mance Rayder at the Wall. Euron Crowseye attacking the Reach. Aegon Targaryan landing in the Stormlands. Varys with a crossbow waiting in Renly's chambers.

Stannis could capitalize on any of those moments with the Royal Navy and his 5,000men. And if Renly dies at any point he gains all his bannermen.

If anything can happen, then it's just as likely that Renly might be able to get drunk enough to knock up Magaery Tyrell which means that Stannis's chances of ever becoming king drop to nil as the Tyrell fight to put that child on the throne and that child would be the heir to the Stormlands as well.

Varys waiting for Renly with a crossbow isn't something Stannis can capitalize on as it means Varys thinks he can get a Magaery-Aegon marraige to happen.

But you are right, there are better ends for Stannis, they are just so unbelievably unlikely that they would feel like author magic rather than in universe magic.

[GallowsKnight]

If anything can happen, then it's just as likely that Renly might be able to get drunk enough to knock up Magaery Tyrell which means that Stannis's chances of ever becoming king drop to nil as the Tyrell fight to put that child on the throne and that child would be the heir to the Stormlands as well.

Varys waiting for Renly with a crossbow isn't something Stannis can capitalize on as it means Varys thinks he can get a Magaery-Aegon marraige to happen.

But you are right, there are better ends for Stannis, they are just so unbelievably unlikely that they would feel like author magic rather than in universe magic.

I'm just saying it's a very tumultuous period. Staying out of the conflict makes Stannis an extra resource like Dorne or the Vale. The very literal end of the world is coming. There's no time for Dragonstone to become Taiwan.

[Draco_Dracul]

Well, I was assuming that someone would still get around to saving the world.

[Master Forel's Fro]

Stannis would be nothing without her, if she never came he could still be sucking on Selyse's teat. Crying himself to sleep about Robert never loving him and Ned not wanting to be his friend.

[Castel]

I'm just saying it's a very tumultuous period. Staying out of the conflict makes Stannis an extra resource like Dorne or the Vale. The very literal end of the world is coming. There's no time for Dragonstone to become Taiwan.

Except Dorne and Vale are actual political contenders. Why on Earth would anyone depend on a previously loyal Master of Whispers killing his king? I know that's just an example, but it just goes to show how thin his options were.All the things you mention are things that he couldn't know about and highly unlikely. The most likely course is that someone, probably Renly, unites the south and Stannis is left with nothing. And then, when they don't have more pressing concerns, they can come and hang him.

Mel is the only reason that I don`t support Stannis full time. I don`t trust such a fanatical character.

The board does seem to have a secular bent doesn't it? I see this a lot.

Anyone who is not fanatical after they've learnt how to create ephemeral shadow assassins from royal semen from a religious order and seen the end of the world in flames exactly as they foretold is the person you should be worrying about. You know what single-mindedness in the face of existential threats is called? Sanity.

[Nyrhex]

If Renly had taken King's Landing and defeated Tywin (which was very likely), he would have won the war, and barring Robb's forces in the North, would quickly have consolidated his hold.

Considering how adept he was at lip service (Rainbow Guard, anyone?), the Faith would have found no reason not to back him.

He wouldn't have deferred the payments to the Iron Bank, hence they wouldn't need to look to other claimants.

That leaves Stannis alone and friendless, left with the options of surrender, exile in Essos, or sitting on Dragonstone untill the Redwyne fleet comes and takes it by siege. So all in all, Melisandre definitely improved Stannis' chances.

As for whether Stannis would benefit from breaking with Melisandre now, I doubt it: His current southron soldiers are his only real support right now, and he'd lose more than half of them by abandoning the faith of R'hllor. The northmen will abandon him the moment they've got a Stark in Winterfell once more, so he'd be a fool to count on them.

Even if Renly pays the Iron Bank (which I doubt, as the Tyrells are not that rich, and the coffers at KL are still empty by the time Renly gets there), the Redwyne fleet will only show up well after the letter from the Night's Watch, and Stannis would most likely still choose to go there. Basically we get to Stannis in the North, only without the whole Storm's End-Blackwater-Brooding plotline. Less epic, but still far from over.

As for ditching Mel now, that would probably be a good idea. The North does not like the fire god, and if he wants to at least keep them by his side, leaving her would be a good idea. She is probably going to be more interested in Jon Snow, and she has already betrayed him, in a manner that cannot be covered up if he survives and wins the Siege of Winterfell. The Queen's Men are around a thousend men, or less. The North, as an ally, still gives him a few thousends, and/or a fleet. Stannis is also about to hire ~20,000 sellswords, whos loyalty is to coin, not some god. Keeping Mel is becoming less important, and will mean next to nothing if she comes out with "OMG, Jon Snow is AAR!"...

[GallowsKnight]

Except Dorne and Vale are actual political contenders. Why on Earth would anyone depend on a previously loyal Master of Whispers killing his king? I know that's just an example, but it just goes to show how thin his options were.All the things you mention are things that he couldn't know about and highly unlikely. The most likely course is that someone, probably Renly, unites the south and Stannis is left with nothing. And then, when they don't have more pressing concerns, they can come and hang him.

I'm not saying Stannis should or would be waiting for that to happen. I'm saying it could happen while he bides his time on Dragonstone. Varys (a previously loyal master of whispers who still murdered Kevan Lannister) would be interested in killing Renly as a stable Kingdom under him and the Tyrells is a threat to Aegon's ascension. Stannis is a huge political contender. He is Robert's heir. If Renly dies in any way, many in the realm may form around him. He also has a small army,not as valuable at the start of the WoFK but useful as every side starts getting bloodied. As well as a huge navy, something he could use against the Ironborn or invading Golden Company etc.

My chief argument is not that Stannis wins in any situation or something like that. Simply that a lot happens in the series. At many points Stannis may have had a fighting chance when the opportunity presented itself.

[mrunderhill]

You're doing it as well.

ethics  

eth·ics [eth-iks]

1.

( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles..

That's all it is, a system of morality. There are many moral systems, and some of them could argue for the burning of children as a moral good. All being ethical means is that you follow the particular system you are attached to, Melisandre does that. Whether you disagree with her or not is irrelevant.

There is no giant book ethics from God that tells us who is right or wrong. Melisandre, as someone presumably fighting to save the race, can logically label Davos as extremely immoral, not just for saving Edric, but for taking the decision out of the hands of the king he is sworn to advise and serve. Davos can turn it around and attack Melisandre for denying Gendry's implicit right to life or whatever. Both sides are defensible.

It's kinda like saying that someone who has a political position you disagree with but has it's own benefits is irrational or something.

Sounds all well and good, but I don't buy there is no universal laws on ethics. Simply, because when you except that all morals are relative then things like genocide are acceptable. After all it is just another person's system of ethics. Who are you to judge that person? Murderers, child abusers, rapist etc All they are doing is following their own ethical system. They are no worse than us surely, just have a different set of ethics.

I completely reject that. It may be difficult to know where to draw the line, but somethings are intrinsically wrong in my opinion. No one will ever convince me that genocide is just somebody else following their code of ethics.

Stannis would be dead without Melisandre, but there are somethings worse than death like Macbeth found out. Stannis would have been a great man without her. He may have died against Renly, but in time people would respect his memory like they did with Ned Stark.

[Draco_Dracul]

Stannis would be dead without Melisandre, but there are somethings worse than death like Macbeth found out. Stannis would have been a great man without her. He may have died against Renly, but in time people would respect his memory like they did with Ned Stark.

Technically, he only went to face Renly under her advisement. I also don't think he'd be a great man as he would have still abandoned his brother to the lions.

[Castel]

I'm not saying Stannis should or would be waiting for that to happen. I'm saying it could happen while he bides his time on Dragonstone. Varys (a previously loyal master of whispers who still murdered Kevan Lannister) would be interested in killing Renly as a stable Kingdom under him and the Tyrells is a threat to Aegon's ascension.

Stannis doesn't know this.

Stannis is a huge political contender. He is Robert's heir. If Renly dies in any way, many in the realm may form around him

Except it's unlikely that he will die.

. He also has a small army,not as valuable at the start of the WoFK but useful as every side starts getting bloodied.

Still wouldn't help. And it won't matter if Renly takes over.

My chief argument is not that Stannis wins in any situation or something like that. Simply that a lot happens in the series. At many points Stannis may have had a fighting chance when the opportunity presented itself.

Except it was unlikely that there'd ever be the opportunity.

Sounds all well and good, but I don't buy there is no universal laws on ethics. Simply, because when you except that all morals are relative then things like genocide are acceptable.

So...because it's inconvenient for you then there must be moral absolutes? Is this supposed to be a rational argument?

After all it is just another person's system of ethics. Who are you to judge that person? Murderers, child abusers, rapist etc All they are doing is following their own ethical system. They are no worse than us surely, just have a different set of ethics.

The universe doesn't scream in outrage when someone murders, rapes or steals. In fact, that would be particularly difficult given that those words aren't even static and are subject to debate. Now, that is not to say that some systems don't cause more pain, just that there is no universal Right.

Why do you even need some universal morality? Do what people have done since the beginning of time. Say :"I'm right, you're wrong, if you don't follow my rules I'll do my best to destroy your life and make you utterly miserable". That's all you need. Lock people up, mock them, hound them, boycott their shit so that everyone who sees them knows what happens when people disagree with you on morality. That's the real driving force.

We've done it to deserters, uppity commoners, women who had sex with the wrong people, people who dared to act above the station dictated by their class and skin color. And all of us like to hold on to this childish notion that there's some book somewhere at the heart of the universe that justifies all of this. Why can't people try to impose their moral hegemony without resorting to this?

I completely reject that. It may be difficult to know where to draw the line, but somethings are intrinsically wrong in my opinion. No one will ever convince me that genocide is just somebody else following their code of ethics.

Intrinsically wrong because you say so?

Whether you like it or not though, there are many possible ethical systems. So if Melisandre truly believes that genocide will save the world she is possibly acting according to a set of ethics. Trying to remove that and claim that ethics are only valid when they fall within what your gut tells you is acceptable is just strange.

Stannis would be dead without Melisandre, but there are somethings worse than death like Macbeth found out. Stannis would have been a great man without her. He may have died against Renly, but in time people would respect his memory like they did with Ned Stark.

Except that no one really liked Stannis.

I've always found this "respect after death" argument strange. People offer it as some sort of reward but am I the only one who finds it to be a meaningless platitude in the face of complete and utter failure?

[Light a wight tonight]

I think the better question is will Stannis be better off without Mel? Once she figures out that her reading him in the flames as AAR was a mistake she'll withdraw her support.

[GallowsKnight]

Stannis doesn't know this.

That's what I am saying. Stannis wouldn't be expecting anything like this. But had he just waited on the island it may have happened. We as readers now Varys is up to something.

Except it's unlikely that he will die.

He's a rebel king in a war. It's a high risk job. And we personally know as readers that Varys and Illyrio do not want a stable Seven Kingdoms for Aegon to invade. Not discounting his other enemies such as Tywin Lannister who is not against some treachery. Littlefinger too is a wildcard.

Renly could be posioned, he could be shot by a crossbow bolt. Kings get assassinated. Kings also get sick or fall off horses. Stannis is a step away from his bannermen.

Still wouldn't help. And it won't matter if Renly takes over.

Which brings me back to Varys, Tywin and everyone else who wants Renly dead.

Except it was unlikely that there'd ever be the opportunity.

We have seen a lot of unlikely things happen in this wars. Seriously who could predict how it has all turned out.

[mrunderhill]

So...because it's inconvenient for you then there must be moral absolutes? Is this supposed to be a rational argument?

This was just my opinion. Ultimately we have no proof either way if there are moral absolutes or not. It's up to each individual to decide if there is a universal moral code out there or not. However, I believe it impossible to live any kind of life, where you truly believe there are no moral absolutes.

The universe doesn't scream in outrage when someone murders, rapes or steals. In fact, that would be particularly difficult given that those words aren't even static and are subject to debate. Now, that is not to say that some systems don't cause more pain, just that there is no universal Right.

Says who? Proof to me there is no moral absolute in the universe? Do you even realise that by saying there is mo moral absolute in the universe you are creating an absolute morality of irrelevance?

Why do you even need some universal morality? Do what people have done since the beginning of time. Say :"I'm right, you're wrong, if you don't follow my rules I'll do my best to destroy your life and make you utterly miserable". That's all you need. Lock people up, mock them, hound them, boycott their shit so that everyone who sees them knows what happens when people disagree with you on morality.

Yes that is what we need or else rapist, murderers and others would be free to do what they want. You would not be too happy if someone decided to chop of your leg for the fun of it.

We've done it to deserters, uppity commoners, women who had sex with the wrong people, people who dared to act above the station dictated by their class and skin color. And all of us like to hold on to this childish notion that there's some book somewhere at the heart of the universe that justifies all of this. Why can't people try to impose their moral hegemony without resorting to this?

Intrinsically wrong because you say so?

It's just as childish to think there is no moral absolutes. I would love to see you be so philosophical if someone murdered your family. Just, because we cannot be clear where to draw the line does not mean there is no line. Moral hegemony is the biggest lie ever. If you think murder is right and I think it is wrong, how can we coexist? I am supposed to let you go around killing people, because it fits your moral code? No. I am unapologetic about the need to impose a moral code on people.

Whether you like it or not though, there are many possible ethical systems. So if Melisandre truly believes that genocide will save the world she is possibly acting according to a set of ethics. Trying to remove that and claim that ethics are only valid when they fall within what your gut tells you is acceptable is just strange.

No it is normal and everyone does it. I am just straight forward about this. I also never said my moral code is superior because it belongs to me. I said I believe there is a universal moral code, though as humans we are perhaps incapable of understanding everything about it, but we intrinsically no certain things are wrong. I can live in the world according to my belief in universal morals. How do you speak out against the likes of Hitler or child killers? By what right do you condemn them if morals are relative? By what right do you even punish them? With moral relativity we have a society where the strongest person gets to do what he wants and if he wants to be a tyrant then you should be fine with that.

Except that no one really liked Stannis.

I've always found this "respect after death" argument strange. People offer it as some sort of reward but am I the only one who finds it to be a meaningless platitude in the face of complete and utter failure?

People don't like Stannis, but they respect him. It's your opinion, but some people think that dying with your honour in tact is important.

[Sullen]

She's the source of half of his army and his personal deus ex machina.

He'd be nowhere without her.

[TalalOfDorne]

I must admit he would be in a worse situation without her.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

She's the source of half of his army

If you're trying to say half of Stannis army (The Queens Men that is) came on board BECAUSE of Melisandre, that's not true. The Queens Men were either from Narrow Sea houses sworn to Stannis from the beginning or Stormlands and Reach houses that came on board after Renly left. The conversions to R'hllor came later.