How many people has Melisandre actually burned?

[The Red Melli]

The cases are not different and not irrelevant to the conversation. To condemn or support one and not the other is hypocritical. If you are not willing to support Aerys for doing the exact same thing then your argument fails. Pure and simple. Either support Aerys for doing what he did because he was king and it's expected that he kills traitors and can burn whatever buildings he wants, or condemn Stannis for doing similar things that caused the Mad King to get his name. You don't get to have it both ways where Aerys is mad and evil while Stannis is right and just when you can use the same justifications for both actions.

It's legal what Aerys did just like the post above you said.

In Stannis' case there's murder in the game. There was no murder in the game with Aerys he was just plain mad and starts to execute those who he didn't like.

I can't think of one person who doesn't do the same when there's treason and murder in the case.

[E-Ro]

There is a huge difference between stannis' burnings and aerys. Stannis only burns convicted criminals to death, aerys burned innocents because it made him horny. Whats more, aerys burned a high lord and his whole entourage to death without trial.

[Blackfish Tully]

There is a huge difference between stannis' burnings and aerys. Stannis only burns convicted criminals to death, aerys burned innocents because it made him horny. Whats more, aerys burned a high lord and his whole entourage to death without trial.

Alester Florent was not a convicted criminal. Stannis decided that he was a traitor and put him in prison just like Aerys decided the Starks were traitors and put them in prison . To act like there is a huge difference from what happened to the Starks and Alester Florent is just not reality . What did Alester Florent do that he deserved to get burned alive for ? Also if I remember Alester was imprisoned for treason but he was burned to get favorable winds for the trip up north and I'm pretty sure he did not get a trial and though he wasn't a high lord he was the Hand of the King.

[E-Ro]

Alester Florent was not a convicted criminal. Stannis decided that he was a traitor and put him in prison just like Aerys decided the Starks were traitors and put them in prison . To act like there is a huge difference from what happened to the Starks and Alester Florent is just not reality . What did Alester Florent do that he deserved to get burned alive for ? Also if I remember Alester was imprisoned for treason but he was burned to get favorable winds for the trip up north and I'm pretty sure he did not get a trial and though he wasn't a high lord he was the Hand of the King.

He tried to negotiate a peace with the kings enemies and marry the kings heir off. He was a traitor.

[Associate Maester]

People (eta: Rambton and his sons) standing up to religious persecution and fanaticism and being killed and burned for it suffices to make their killings "a matter of justice"?

They went against what Stannis ordered. They were traitors and death was one of the punishments for traitors. Within the world of the text these guys certainly weren't innocent.

[Associate Maester]

Alester Florent was not a convicted criminal. Stannis decided that he was a traitor and put him in prison just like Aerys decided the Starks were traitors and put them in prison . To act like there is a huge difference from what happened to the Starks and Alester Florent is just not reality . What did Alester Florent do that he deserved to get burned alive for ? Also if I remember Alester was imprisoned for treason but he was burned to get favorable winds for the trip up north and I'm pretty sure he did not get a trial and though he wasn't a high lord he was the Hand of the King.

He tried to broker a deal without talking to Stannis. He overstepped his bounds and got punished. Again, he still committed treason going against his King and liege Lord. So, yeah in Westeros his punishment was perfectly legal and legally he is defined as a traitor.

[Blackfish Tully]

He tried to negotiate a peace with the kings enemies and marry the kings heir off. He was a traitor.

Isn't it part of the Kings Hand's job to negotiate with the enemy to find peaceful solution to war. He didn't do anything , he just inquired to see what terms the Iron Throne would accept . He basically got burned alive for asking a few questions, how fair is that?

[E-Ro]

Isn't it part of the Kings Hand's job to negotiate with the enemy to find peaceful solution to war. He didn't do anything , he just inquired to see what terms the Iron Throne would accept . He basically got burned alive for asking a few questions, how fair is that?

Not against the kings wishes it isn't. Seriously, think about what you are saying. the argument you are using is indefensible. You dont negotiate with what is not yours, against your leaders wishes.

[Blackfish Tully]

He tried to broker a deal without talking to Stannis. He overstepped his bounds and got punished. Again, he still committed treason going against his King and liege Lord. So, yeah in Westeros his punishment was perfectly legal and legally he is defined as a traitor.

Legal is what the King decides it is, just like Aerys decided that what the Starks did was treason . There is very little difference in what Stannis did to Alester and Aerys did to the Starks except that Stannis did not enjoy it like Aerys did but I'm sure that was no comfort to Alester as he was cooking on the woodpile.

[E-Ro]

Legal is what the King decides it is, just like Aerys decided that what the Starks did was treason . There is very little difference in what Stannis did to Alester and Aerys did to the Starks except that Stannis did not enjoy it like Aerys did but I'm sure that was no comfort to Alester as he was cooking on the woodpile.

No, the difference is alester ACTUALLY did something wrong. Rickard had done nothing but ride into KL to ask for justice.

[Blackfish Tully]

Not against the kings wishes it isn't. Seriously, think about what you are saying. the argument you are using is indefensible. You dont negotiate with what is not yours, against your leaders wishes.

I agree that what he did was stupid but I'm not sure asking a couple of questions about what it would take to get back into the good graces of the Iron Throne rises to the punishment of being burned alive.

[Blackfish Tully]

No, the difference is alester ACTUALLY did something wrong. Rickard had done nothing but ride into KL to ask for justice.

We don't know what Rickard's southern ambitions were so we do not know if there were reasons for Aerys to declare him a traitor .

[Blackfish Tully]

Also Alester was burned not for being a traitor but instead so they could get favorable winds going up north , how insane is that?

[aceluby]

There is a huge difference between stannis' burnings and aerys. Stannis only burns convicted criminals to death, aerys burned innocents because it made him horny. Whats more, aerys burned a high lord and his whole entourage to death without trial.

When did Stannis have a trial for those he burned? Who are these 'innocents' you guys keep bringing up?

Stannis burned people for treason.

Aerys burned people for treason.

Stannis burned his sept because he owned it and wanted it burned.

Aerys wanted to burn KL because he owned it and wanted it burned.

These are the arguments presented and the small details you are trying to use to justify one over the other are meaningless. It doesn't matter that Aerys was mad or if he enjoyed it, what matters is the actions performed and the reasoning behind those actions. If you can justify Stannis burning people because it was treason, then so can Aerys. If you can justify Stannis burning down his sept, then so can Aerys when trying to burn King's Landing.

[E-Ro]

When did Stannis have a trial for those he burned? Who are these 'innocents' you guys keep bringing up?

Stannis burned people for treason.

Aerys burned people for treason.

Stannis burned his sept because he owned it and wanted it burned.

Aerys wanted to burn KL because he owned it and wanted it burned.

These are the arguments presented and the small details you are trying to use to justify one over the other are meaningless. It doesn't matter that Aerys was mad or if he enjoyed it, what matters is the actions performed and the reasoning behind those actions. If you can justify Stannis burning people because it was treason, then so can Aerys. If you can justify Stannis burning down his sept, then so can Aerys when trying to burn King's Landing.

No, becaus it is said in the text, clear as day, that aerys had been burning innocent smallfolk for no reason. And Stannis has proof of crimes commited, its not as if he burns without knowing with absolute certainty of a crime being committed.

[Blackfish Tully]

No, becaus it is said in the text, clear as day, that aerys had been burning innocent smallfolk for no reason. And Stannis has proof of crimes commited, its not as if he burns without knowing with absolute certainty of a crime being committed.

The fact that he was going to burn Edric Storm puts a big question mark on your certainty of Stannis only burning somebody with the absolute certainty of a crime being commited. There is no doubt in my mind that if Stannis was convinced that burning innocent people would get him closer to the throne he would do it without hesitation. Davos saved Stannis from that decision but the fact that he was thinking about puts your whole argument into question.

[The Red Melli]

The fact that he was going to burn Edric Storm puts a big question mark on your certainty of Stannis only burning somebody with the absolute certainty of a crime being commited. There is no doubt in my mind that if Stannis was convinced that burning innocent people would get him closer to the throne he would do it without hesitation. Davos saved Stannis from that decision but the fact that he was thinking about puts your whole argument into question.

Sure but what's one life to safe a possible of 10000 lives.

I'm done for today. :stillsick:

[Blackfish Tully]

Sure but what's one life to safe a possible of 10000 lives.

I'm done for today. :stillsick:

Is burning Edric going to save 10000 lives? how do you know?

[RenlyIsNotRight]

The fact that he was going to burn Edric Storm puts a big question mark on your certainty of Stannis only burning somebody with the absolute certainty of a crime being commited. There is no doubt in my mind that if Stannis was convinced that burning innocent people would get him closer to the throne he would do it without hesitation. Davos saved Stannis from that decision but the fact that he was thinking about puts your whole argument into question.

Can I just say I find it funny that one of the biggest things Stannis haters love to throw at him is "OMG HE THOUGHT ABOUT BURNING EDRIC!". Not that I would have condoned that action if he had, ya know, actually done it. But alas, this is ASOIAF, not fucking Minority Report. You never see people going off on Jaime for admitting he hoped we would kill Bran when he threw him out the window.

Of course, the abomination that was Season 3 show Stannis now has people believing Stannis actually wanting to burn people for the hell of it, but I think its clear in the books even the Edric thing he always had a reluctance around, and lets not forget his threat to brutally kill Mel were it for nothing.

[E-Ro]

Is burning Edric going to save 10000 lives? how do you know?

He doesn't know, but so far mel has been correct in all her predictions, and he has seen her power, so he has no reason to doubt her.

“Edric—“ He started. “—Is one boy! He may be the best boy that ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm.” His hand swept across the painted table. “How many boys live in westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies… a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone… She speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more then I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?”