Stannis's Decision to have Renly killed (long post).

[Phewdi]

That is where you are wrong, as the legal heir to Robert Baratheon(since Cersei's children we're all abominable bastards), Renly owed Stannis his allegiance. As his younger brother and as a lord of westeros. Stannis was king, by declaring himself king for no other reason than "I want that!" Renly betrayed Stannis and deserved a traitors death.

That seems a pretty lame excuse to kill your own brother.

[StannisBamfatheon]

That seems a pretty lame excuse to kill your own brother.

A lame excuse to kill your brother is that he's usurping your throne and means to kill you in a battle? Hmmmmmm...not exactly mom he stole my gamecube controller or something.

[Phewdi]

A lame excuse to kill your brother is that he's usurping your throne and means to kill you in a battle? Hmmmmmm...not exactly mom he stole my gamecube controller or something.

No, but if you were in the same position, would YOU kill your brother?

[The Great Walrus]

No, but if you were in the same position, would YOU kill your brother?

I would.

[E-Ro]

No, but if you were in the same position, would YOU kill your brother?

Yes.

[Phewdi]

I would.

Yes.

I cannot believe what I am hearing. You two would KILL your brother who had been toyed with and encouraged to be King, when he's not even aware that you're the rightful King and you treat him like shit?

God, I hope you two don';t have brothers.

[Wise Fool]

Renly and Stannis also represent two different approaches to rulership. Renly was all about 'might makes right;' he expounded on this to Catelyn several times, how he would be made king by the might of his armies and nothing else, that "now we see who is stronger," etc. Stannis on the other hand is all about the rule of law; Ned is correct that Stannis is the true king according to the laws and customs of the Seven Kingdoms, and Stannis doesn't even seem to want to be king (unlike Renly, who clearly took a lot of pleasure in the notion) but sees it as his duty which he can't avoid. While of course Stannis has his problems and Renly had his good side, in the end I'd have to say that yes, Stannis was quite right to choose to destroy Renly.

I would only question the method of how. In a battle, or even duel would be preferable to having Mel do her creepy shadow-baby assassination.

[ejhawman]

To me, the shock value lies only in the manner of the death, not in the kinslaying angle. if Renly had been killed in battle by Stannis or one of his men, would there be so much hate? Or if he had hired a mortal assassin?

I agree Stannis did what he had to do. Narratively the shock helped establish that Stannis valued law above even family, to a degree that would make for a very different kingdom if more people had such values.

I might also speculate that the hatred is from readers who feel cheated out of a big battle and a more extended "War of the FIVE Kings" instead of turning into four kings in only a handful of chapters.

[Phewdi]

Renly and Stannis also represent two different approaches to rulership. Renly was all about 'might makes right;' he expounded on this to Catelyn several times, how he would be made king by the might of his armies and nothing else, that "now we see who is stronger," etc. Stannis on the other hand is all about the rule of law; Ned is correct that Stannis is the true king according to the laws and customs of the Seven Kingdoms, and Stannis doesn't even seem to want to be king (unlike Renly, who clearly took a lot of pleasure in the notion) but sees it as his duty which he can't avoid. While of course Stannis has his problems and Renly had his good side, in the end I'd have to say that yes, Stannis was quite right to choose to destroy Renly.

I would only question the method of how. In a battle, or even duel would be preferable to having Mel do her creepy shadow-baby assassination.

"Wise Fool"...hmm...

[Phewdi]

To me, the shock value lies only in the manner of the death, not in the kinslaying angle. if Renly had been killed in battle by Stannis or one of his men, would there be so much hate? Or if he had hired a mortal assassin?

I agree Stannis did what he had to do. Narratively the shock helped establish that Stannis valued law above even family, to a degree that would make for a very different kingdom if more people had such values.

I might also speculate that the hatred is from readers who feel cheated out of a big battle and a more extended "War of the FIVE Kings" instead of turning into four kings in only a handful of chapters.

Damn, never considered that before. Thank you, that actually rings true...

[Silent_Hero]

I cannot believe what I am hearing. You two would KILL your brother who had been toyed with and encouraged to be King, when he's not even aware that you're the rightful King and you treat him like shit?

God, I hope you two don';t have brothers.

Oh please, Renly had those granduer visions, he wasn't manipulated, he knew how to play the Game and by declaring himself King he set himself as a target and forfeited Stannis' life even though he knew that Stannis was the type of man never to back down.

[LuisDantas]

I’ve been on the forums for a while now, and I’ve noticed that Stannis seems to receive an awful lot of hate for one particular act: Renly’s death.

Very true, although that is just the first and most clear example of Stannis' colors. It was hardly the last.

There is also the killing of Courtnay Penrose; the near-killing of Edric Storm; the blackmailing of the Night's Watch; and his arrogant, suicidal behavior while attempting to attain glory in the North.

You should also consider that by deciding to defy Renly in the first place instead of seeking a less self-important but saner alternative such as seeking an alliance and/or keeping King's Landing busy with his fleet Stannis commited a decisive act; he put his pride over the welfare of pretty much everyone else in Westeros. A very good case can be made that he is the single most responsible individual for the total war toll in Westeros, even.

And, of course, there is his dripping hypocrisy.

As we all know, when the two brothers met on the field before their oncoming battle, Stannis offered Renly terms of peace:

Which were utterly self-serving. He might as well offer none.

IMO, these were very generous terms. Renly knew that Stannis came before himself in the line of succession, but he thought that because he was dashing and charming (though ultimately a naive boy) that this would excuse the fact that he was usurping his brother's throne. For Stannis to offer these terms at all is incredibly gracious of him.

That doesn't work at all, sorry. It would only make sense if and once we had established that Stannis had a better claim to the throne than Renly.

Which quite simply wasn't true from the moment that Renly's challenge became succesfull by way of raising enough military and political support, which he clearly did at that time.

And even that is assuming that Stannis had a prayer of a chance of attaining the kind of support that would truly make him a rightful ruler at any point in time, which sounds unlikely in the extreme even according to himself (by his own words in ACOK, right from the start) and Davos (as by his own thoughts while talking to Wyman Manderly).

It is clear to me that whatever leads so many people to think of Stannis as a somehow legitimate claimant amounts to very little beyond an utterly literal reading of the letter of the law (that however must by necessity also ignore the lack of proof and of adequate call for arbitration and is therefore moot) and a misguided admiration for his ruthlessness and inconsequence, which seem to appear to deserve to be called boldness by some.

Ultimately, Stannis is just a self-serving thug with high birth and no scruples to speak of.

Now, as we all know, Renly declined and so it was not long before he was dead. But this topic is not about the terms that Stannis offered and whether or not Renly should have accepted, but about why Stannis having Renly killed isn't a reason for readers to hate him (Stannis).

Eh. Good luck. Even if you succeed (and you will not), that makes no difference. Stannis' worth has been much too well established already.

1. Renly was set to die either way. He had the largest army (IIRC), he was the most loved by the people, and he was close to taking the Throne. It was all set up too perfectly, he just had to die. Now, had Tywin or another character killed him in battle, it would have made for a good scene but not a particularly interesting one. In a way, Stannis being the one responsible for his death was far more interesting, surprising and it helped to build up the plot and Stannis’ character/story arc. Let’s not forget, Renly’s death also added a great deal to the character and plots of Loras and Brienne too.

That does not make a whole lot of sense. You are essentially claiming that Stannis is a villain because it makes the story more interesting. I don't even agree with that, but if I did that would in no way be a reason not to despise Stannis. I don't fail to despise Petyr Baelish for betraying Ned Stark at just the right moment either, after all.

2. Stannis killing Renly wasn’t a particularly horrific event. Now, that doesn’t mean that I’m condoning fratricide because I’m not. It’s not an acceptable act. But given what we know of ASoIaF and the world it’s based in, fratricide isn’t as big a scandal as it would be today. There are issues in ASoIaF that are equally “questionable”; incest, cannibalism, racism, slavery, rape…the list goes on. With all these issues featured in ASoIaF, why does fratricide stand out more than the others? Honestly, I just think it added more to the story.

I don't even think of Renly as Stannis' brother. That is not the issue. His grotesque warfield "ethics" are.

3. Having Renly killed was a good plot move, not necessarily for the story itself, but for Stannis. It showed the readers that Stannis put justice and order above all, and anyone who challenged that would pay, blood or no. Renly was his brother, but to Stannis was also a traitor and a usurper and for Stannis, it needed to be done.

Of course, Renly’s death eventually backfired on Stannis but that’s not the point made here. The point is that Stannis having Renly killed wasn’t at all as despicable as it seemed, it was the norm for ASoIaF.

Surely you jest. There is not even a caricature of "justice" in Stannis' betrayal of Renly. Don't take Stannis' claims at face value; the guy is a compulsive liar that hides under a (weak) veneer of respectability in order to protect his fragile and craving ego.

Renly's death hasn't yet backfired on Stannis, though; he got everything from it that he hoped to.

Hopefully it shall backfire to him yet. If the butcher lives that much, that is.

4. Given that Tommen, Myrcella and Joffrey are all bastards born of incest, Stannis is the rightful King and given that Renly was in open rebellion, even after being offered generous terms, Stannis had every right to sanction his death.

Nope, no, negative, no way, are you kidding, speak sense now.

I mean, really.

First of all, Stannis has no proof. None whatsoever. Second and most importantly, despite a common misunderstanding, royal successions simply do not work that way in the first place. Do you truly think that it is - or ever was or should have been - just a matter of following the letter of the law and the family tree to find out who should be crowned?

No society should ever be mistaken for such a naive group, really. In the real world, quite often there was not even an actual succession law, because it is so pointless to have any. Heck, not even minor feudal territories are inherited quite that automatically. If you truly expect the High Lords to just surrender for the letter of a succession law without opining on the wisdom of going by it, then you have just not dwelled on it very much. The truth of the matter is that in Westeros as in the real world some people will be accepted as political leaders and others will not... and being the next in line is a good reason to receive some sort of attention from those who truly grant political power, but not to expect to actually receive that decisive support.

As Davos and Stannis himself say in no unclear terms in the prologue of ACOK, Stannis is simply not capable of earning such support, despite lying a lot to himself about the matter.

I might be alone here, but I’d like to hear the views of others on the matter. Do you judge Stannis harshly for his decision, or do you understand it?

I understand the sociopath butcher well enough. Can't wait for his painful, well-deserved downfall.

[Phewdi]

Oh please, Renly had those granduer visions, he wasn't manipulated, he knew how to play the Game and by declaring himself King he set himself as a target and forfeited Stannis' life even though he knew that Stannis was the type of man never to back down.

I actually blame Stannis, but okay.

[LuisDantas]

Oh please, Renly had those granduer visions, he wasn't manipulated, he knew how to play the Game and by declaring himself King he set himself as a target and forfeited Stannis' life even though he knew that Stannis was the type of man never to back down.

So it is Renly's fault that Stannis does not have the sense to seek an understanding?

I wish you people convinced my relatives with similar arguments. I could use them giving me everything I want.

[Phewdi]

So it is Renly's fault that Stannis does not have the sense to seek an understanding?

I wish you people convinced my relatives with similar arguments. I could use them giving me everything I want.

:lmao:

[Mladen]

I cannot believe what I am hearing. You two would KILL your brother who had been toyed with and encouraged to be King, when he's not even aware that you're the rightful King and you treat him like shit?

God, I hope you two don';t have brothers.

Who encouraged Renly to become a King? Who toyed him? Renly was very much aware of entire situation, and he chose to become a King. Renly knew Stannis' claim is better, but he ignored it willingly. And once he did, they became enemies...

[StannisBamfatheon]

No, but if you were in the same position, would YOU kill your brother?

Absolutely I would

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

So it is Renly's fault that Stannis does not have the sense to seek an understanding?

I wish you people convinced my relatives with similar arguments. I could use them giving me everything I want.

Why is it Stannis' responsibility to step aside for Renly and not the other way around? It makes sense to blame both of them for a failure to compromise, but it doesn't make sense to just blame Stannis here. Renly knew what kind of person Stannis is and he knew it would mean a fight to the death if he declared himself king.

[Phewdi]

Who encouraged Renly to become a King? Who toyed him? Renly was very much aware of entire situation, and he chose to become a King. Renly knew Stannis' claim is better, but he ignored it willingly. And once he did, they became enemies...

Loras, for one.

Absolutely I would

I...I can't believe what I'm hearing. KILL your own brother? For a crown?

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Who encouraged Renly to become a King? Who toyed him? Renly was very much aware of entire situation, and he chose to become a King. Renly knew Stannis' claim is better, but he ignored it willingly. And once he did, they became enemies...

Ninja'd! :ninja: