was stannis meant to be likeable

[butterbumps!]

There is no other way to look at such an extremely simple quote. He called Stannis righteous. There's no other perspective here, no other way of interpreting this. I'm having a hard time believing you're actually even saying what you are saying. In spite of everything, Stannis is a righteous man. It means Stannis has his flaws but he is an overall righteous man. That is what it means, there is no way twist the meaning of this sentence around.

Seriously.

Tox, brah, honestly, I think you're taking this with too positive a spin. Deconstructed, and in context with the rest of the interview, that line is saying "even though Stannis does unjustifiable things, he's committed to this one justifiable cause." He's not calling Stannis a "hero" (as per the initial posts prior to the full quote), nor is he painting Stannis with a broad stroke of being "righteous" (morally justified and virtuous). Martin is explicitly not saying that he sees all of Stannis' actions as objectively righteous or justifiable.

This quote is often used as an argument to evince that Martin believes Stannis is outright righteous, even about the "in spite of" parts. That's not an honest reading though; the language of the "in spite of" modifier shows us that if anything, he doesn't outrightly condone these actions outside of fighting the real threat against humanity.

[aceluby]

Eddard Stark didn't think badly of him, and is it really a bad thing to be righteous and be disliked by people like Cercei? Ask yourself that.

Ned didn't think fondly of him either. We don't get much from him besides that he's the rightful heir, which is well w/in Ned's character as an honorable man following the laws of succession.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, why is it a bad thing that Stannis wants the throne or that it's the main driver of his actions? IMO, it's not, it just doesn't play into the hero mold and therefore it's seen as a negative by the Stanfans. What's so hard to believe that a man slighted his entire life despite doing his duty whenever possible will not suffer to be slighted again by people he feels are beneath him? He believes the throne is his by rights and will not be denied his right as he was denied before. Yes, it's his duty, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the realm or common people.

Also, BTW, he didn't get the vision that he would die w/ a crown until after BW, well after the start of his campaign to take the realm which started when Robert was still alive.

[Toxspecific]

Tox, brah, honestly, I think you're taking this with too positive a spin. Deconstructed, and in context with the rest of the interview, that line is saying "even though Stannis does unjustifiable things, he's committed to this one justifiable cause." He's not calling Stannis a "hero" (as per the initial posts prior to the full quote), nor is he painting Stannis with a broad stroke of being "righteous" (morally justified and virtuous). Martin is explicitly not saying that he sees all of Stannis' actions as objectively righteous or justifiable.

This quote is often used as an argument to evince that Martin believes Stannis is outright righteous, even about the "in spite of" parts. That's not an honest reading though; the language of the "in spite of" modifier shows us that if anything, he doesn't outrightly condone these actions outside of fighting the real threat against humanity.

I know that. I don't say it but I do know what you're saying; of course GRRM doesn't condoning Stannis considering killing Edric, or using burnings as a frequent punishment, but he ended his sentence saying Stannis is indeed a righteous man, something I don't think he would have done if Stannis wasn't. I know fully well what Stannis' flaws are; I don't mention them because I'd rather have someone arguing against him to do so.

Stannis is a righteous man can be, wrongly, interpreted as a very absolute remark. I think GRRM summed it up with this sentence. That he's done more right than wrong, intends to do more right than wrong; the wrong is there but it does not outweigh the right. That's what I firmly believe Martin meant.

And if I have to explain to someone else why Stannis doesn't give a shit about courtroom life and hence doesn't desire the Throne for da ladies and da money, I'm gonna run off to Essos.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I find Stannis a very... Okay character. He's never the character that, had I not come here, would bet he is some people's favorite. He's more a plot-character than anything. I don't find him fascinating. Maybe I'd like him in his younger years, before AGOT, but I just find him okay. He doesn't inspire in me love or loyalty.

Jon is a truly good man, and his actions as LC were complicated, but they got to me. Jon's growth got to me. As Sansa's courage in King's Landing, as she had to face Joffrey and Cersei and remained locked behind her courtesy. She never allowed herself to be weak, no matter how much she suffered, and I felt for her especially when she married Tyrion, or when she got her news of the RW. Catelyn is all and all a Tragic character, and that makes me feel for her even more than I felt for others. Daenerys, as a whole lot shades of grey, still inspires bravery and she's a true leader, despite her issues. She's a Conqueror, she's the last Targaryen, and yet she's a girl, and she's struggling. I find her a good read, especially when it comes to someone so powerful having such doubts.

All in All, I could go on into Cersei, Jaime, Brienne, Arianne Martell, Tyrion, Arya and Tywin, Arthur Dayne and Robert and Lyanna and Brandon, as a whole lot of characters that fascinate me. Ashara personally. But Stannis doesn't cause that in me. He's just... There. I'd like to clarify that I don't find him a bad character, nor do I deny his accomplishments. He was brave when defending the Wall, he's been trying to save the North and the NW, saving the Kingdoms, and that's all very noble. But I just can't truly like him. He's more a plot-driven character to me.

[butterbumps!]

Stannis is a righteous man can be, wrongly, interpreted as a very absolute remark. I think GRRM summed it up with this sentence. That he's done more right than wrong, intends to do more right than wrong; the wrong is there but it does not outweigh the right. That's what I firmly believe Martin meant.

I really don't think so, Tox. Let's look again: 'And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.'

Martin is not saying that Stannis has done more right than wrong. He's saying that Stannis' understanding of the big threat renders him righteous, in this instance. The tone of this is something of a defense of Stannis against detractors; based on the fact that Martin is trying detach the character of Stannis from other dark/ unwilling historical figures, he's making sure to point out that despite the resemblances to these other figures, Stannis has one objectively and unquestionably right impulse. The tone of this is saying that one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, because while Stannis may not be likable or justified about other things, he is on the "right" side in this case.

It seems somewhat uncritical and dishonest to take this as an assertion that because of this one thing Martin believes Stannis has done right, it means that Stannis' entire character is thusly absolved and he's "righteous" as some holistic conclusion. I also contest whether Martin's personal statements about characters like this should be taken as a form of proof to tell us how we're supposed to interpret the characters; in truth, Martin's comments about interpretations of the characters are nebulous and vague, and none of them, including this one, gives us an uncontested explanation of how we're "meant" to see the characters-- this one in particular reads as Martin's trying to point out an oversight about the virtue of Stannis' campaign, presumably in light of negative reactions to the character that might have missed this factor.

Righteousness, and Stannis' belief in his righteousness (both real and imagined), are definitely part of the character. When a reader adds up all the bad and good and makes a determination on whether Stannis is holistically righteous or not is a personal conclusion, not one that should be dictated by a particular interpretation of an interview with the author.

[aceluby]

His desire to sit the throne has nothing to do with court, money, etc... Not sure why you keep bringing that up. As I've said before, he wants the throne because it's his by rights and he will not be slighted by people he believes are beneath him, as he has been slighted his birthright in the past. It's actually one of the most interesting parts of his character because despite both of his brothers being dead he is still haunted by them.

[A Man Has Said]

I just knew people would grab at the 'inspite of everything' words desperately. LOL it doesn't change the fact that GRRM said Stannis is righteous. You can't twist it around, you can't worm your way around it, the man himself said it. In spite of everything meant that Stannis has had mistakes, flaws but overall remains a righteous man. That is what it means.

[...<snip>...]

I think it's equally or even more desperate to IGNORE the qualification. And by the way, I detect a pattern in the Stannis Champions' defense. When you can't properly respond to something, just call it desperate and move on - ignoring the fact that your opponent has brought up a solid point and making a personal attack on them in the same sentence.

[...<snip>...]

He has his flaws, but that doesn't make him a bad man. And if you honestly think he truly believes he is Azor Ahai then all I can respond to you with is a facepalm. He burned the statues of the Seven to appease the new red god he believed had definite mystical abilities that could help him take what is his. Not because he is a true red god worshipper.

He gets annoyed when people rant about the red god, he gets uneasy when Mel goes on with her bla bla Azor Ahai stuff. He knows there is a definite power she worships, but he does not worship it. He uses it as a weapon. The Azor Ahai thing he allows to fly as a way of spreading his campaign.

Iron Throne > Azor Ahai. I don't know how many years it will take people to finally realize that he gives a rat's ass about the red faith if it does not help his POLITICAL campaign. And why do you laugh when he says he wants to help the realm? What do you have to go by to accuse him of lying in this regard? Shows a pre-formed stance towards him on your part if anything else.

"..if you honestly think he truly believes he is Azor Ahai then all I can respond to you with is a facepalm."

Well facepalm right back at ya' if you truly believe that that's what I meant when I said he engaged in a mummer's farce. Obviously I meant that he didn't believe it, but he went along with it anyway. That makes him a fraud. Which, by the way, is not a likeable quality.

As to Stannis using the Azor Ahai myth and the R'hllor religion cynically as a political ploy, I agree but I don't see how it helps make Stannis appear more likable (which I thought was the subject of this thread.) Cynicism isn't likable per se, and the use of a 'ends justifies the means' argument is decidedly unlikable.

Eddard Stark didn't think badly of him, and is it really a bad thing to be righteous and be disliked by people like Cercei? Ask yourself that.

I <3 The Ned, but I don't think that he's always the best judge of character. This is the same guy who graciously gave Cersei a heads up on his intentions to accuse of her of twincest, after all. I think all readers agree that that was an act of felony bad judgment.

In answer to your question, it is a good thing to be righteous even when it makes you unpopular. The thing with Stannis is that a lot of his unpopularity stems from him doing decidedly unrighteous things (like burning the Seven on DS and executing the men who tried to defend their religion.) He is a MIX of good and bad, both in intentions and actions.

[Toxspecific]

You say its a personal conclusion, I say there's a limit to how many things in this series can be interpreted in different ways.

And you're saying that according to you going to the Wall renders him righteous? Is going to the Wall truly the only thing we can take into consideration when deciding whether he is righteous or not? What about the fact that he wants the Iron Throne to avenge his family against the Lannisters and because he holds the law in high regard? I just can't think that him going to the Wall is the only thing that we can judge him by. What if Stannis was an ass when the series began; Robert's say, youngest brother who didn't believe in the incest but wanted the Throne, narrowly lost the Blackwater and suddenly had an epiphany, or encouraged desire, to go to save the North and the Wall?

Would this usurper and willing kingslayer be rendered righteous because he went to the Wall? No. I do not think Martin is declaring Stannis righteous only because he went to the Wall. You were true to say that Martin was indeed defending Stannis against certain criticisms by playing the Save-the-Wall card, but does that mean Martin doesn't believe that Stannis did anything counted as righteous before he went to the Wall? No it doesn't.

@Polar Bear if you read what I said again, you'll see I did indeed mention that Stannis uses the mummer's farce as political leverage. It may make him a fraud in your eyes, but I think it is something completely necessary for a rebel King in need of support from more people to form his army.

Now, you don't see how using the red faith as political leverage works for Stannis? Shadow baby, for one; allowing himself to be seen as the Warrior of Light is to appease Melisandre who can then do stuff like the shadow baby.

And you misinterpreted the thread title right there; when OP said likeable, he meant likeable to us real world fans, not Westerosi people :P But I'll reply to it anyway; Stannis uses the red faith as political leverage because of a combination of 2 reasons:

1. He doesn't give a shit about what the High Septon thinks (religious fanaticism isn't really the source of a lot of military opposition to Stannis so Stannis doesn't care about it)

2. He isn't that good at PR it seems

[Ser Creighton]

He is meant to be likeable to the readers not the characters in the book, though even there he has his moments. Martin knows exactly what he is doing when he uses Stannis to evoke emotion for the reader. He is not only likeable he is sympathetic despite curt and rigid demenor. It actually easy yo see.

1. He is a middle child with classic middle child syndrome. Feeling unacknowledged and often ignored and in truth he often was. Easy for a reader to identify with as who has not felt ignored. But to proud to ever say anythign to his parents.

2. Growing up he felt distant from his brothers and had a large sybling rivalry with his brother Robert and Renly who was desperate for attention.

3. He watched his parents die as a boy. Easily invokes sympathy from the reader.

4. His wife, if she doesn't invoke sympathy for Stannis who does.

5. His daughter who he loves in a world were she would normally not be.

6. His BFF Davos who.

7. Proud Wing, hello how did that not envoke sympathy

8. His interactions with were some of the better moments in the books for those characters.

9. He has some of the best lines in the books.

Renly: You'll be pleased to know she came to me a maid

Stannis: In your bed she's like to die that way.

"Weddings have become more perilous that battles it would seem"

"Would all the lords of westeros, had but a single neck"

"I will have no burnings, prey harder"

Stannis: "I defeated your uncle Victerion and his Iron fleet off fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Stormsend against the power of the reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the wall, though he had 20 times my numbers. Tell me turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?

Theon: You must not call him that, you don't know him

Stannis: No more than he knows me.

"His Knights will be horsed, ours must fight afoot. His men will be nourished, ours must go into battle with empty bellies. It makes no difference. Ser Stupid, Lord to fat, the Bastard, let them come."

10. Stannis was ignored most of his life and pushed aside by his family, he constantly strove for acknowledgment but no matter what he did ended up on the short end of the stick. He then has a Kingdom thrust upon him, and is one of the few people that believes the Others are coming. For all intents he is the King, it is the Lannisters that commited a coup d'etat not Stannis. The Lannisters who plotted against Robert and drugged his wine. The Lannisters that Destroyed the Kings Will, the Lannisters that have put Bastard born children of incest on the throne. The Lannisters that killed the Hand of the King Eddard Stark. Renly who betrayed his brother because he wanted be King because he thought it would be fun.

11. Stannis and Davos are the Walter White and Jesse of A song of Ice and Fire.

[The Drunkard]

11. Stannis and Davos are the Walter White and Jesse of A song of Ice and Fire.

Could you explain this one for me?

[butterbumps!]

And you're saying that according to you going to the Wall renders him righteous?

No. This is what Martin is saying. That quote that you've been using correlates Stannis' righteousness with knowing about the real threat.

Is going to the Wall truly the only thing we can take into consideration when deciding whether he is righteous or not?

No. That's what that quote by Martin is saying. So, in reality, when using this quote to prove that Stannis is holistically justified, it actually hurts your case, because the author is only attributing "righteousness" to Stannis going to the Wall.

What about the fact that he wants the Iron Throne to avenge his family against the Lannisters and because he holds the law in high regard? I just can't think that him going to the Wall is the only thing that we can judge him by. What if Stannis was an ass when the series began; Robert's say, youngest brother who didn't believe in the incest but wanted the Throne, narrowly lost the Blackwater and suddenly had an epiphany, or encouraged desire, to go to save the North and the Wall?

All this stuff you're talking about falls under the "in spite of all this" part of Martin's quote. He's the one who is not signing off on calling this stuff "righteous."

Would this usurper and willing kingslayer be rendered righteous because he went to the Wall? No. I do not think Martin is declaring Stannis righteous only because he went to the Wall.

Actually, that is exactly what Martin's saying: 'And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.'

The ironic part of using this quote to defend Stannis holistically is that Martin is implicitly not calling any of the non-Other-related concerns and actions "righteous."

You were true to say that Martin was indeed defending Stannis against certain criticisms by playing the Save-the-Wall card, but does that mean Martin doesn't believe that Stannis did anything counted as righteous before he went to the Wall? No it doesn't.

But that's exactly what this quote suggests. You can make an argument for Stannis being righteous about other things prior to this Others business, but that's not what is being said in this quote. This quote actually works against that assessment. If you want to make a "Stannis is righteous" argument in the future, especially about non-Wall related things, I think your case is stronger without this quote.

[Ser Creighton]

No, this is the part where members of the Stannis Champions Club conveniently ignore the fact that he also says, "in spite of everything."

No-one is saying that Stannis doesn't do some righteous things, but in almost every case there's a taint to how he does it or why. For instance, he 'saves the wall' with his great cavalry moment at the end of "ASoS" but 1) he only does it as a means of gaining the throne and 2) he kills a lot of wildlings, then turns around and advocates letting the rest of the wildlings through the wall. (Mind you I don't disagree with that decision, but quite a few people in universe do.)

"In spite of everything" starts with the very first mention of Stannis in AGoT, when Bran is overhearing the conversation between Jaime and Cersei and the Kingslayer casually mentions how Stannis "gives everyone indigestion." Until we first see him in the "ACoK" prologue, all we get is second-hand impressions of him and they're all negative. A typical one is Robert's comment on him wanting to close all the brothels in KL. "..next thing you know he'll want to outlaw eating, drinking and breathing."

"In spite of everything" continues with him burning the statues of the Seven and taking part in an obvious mummer's farce to convince everyone that he's the AAR. He's not, you know. He's a fake. He's also a fake about his motives. "For the good of the realm." Don't make me laugh. It's just too funny how the good of the realm always turns out to mean nothing more or less than Stannis gaining the IT.

People object to the advocation of the Wildlings because he had just defeated then let them through to bend the Knee to him? How is that any different from any battle in Westeros, ever? That's what happens the losers bend the knee and it's done. Just like the North or most of it Bent the Knee to KL after they lost. Just like the Reach, Dorne, and the Crown lands bent the knee to Robert, just like the Greyjoy's bent the knee to Robert after the Greyjoy rebellion. That's what the losers do in Westeros.

[Ser Creighton]

Could you explain this one for me?

I don't know, do you know who Walter White and Jesse are ?

[Stanerys Snow]

In answer to your question, it is a good thing to be righteous even when it makes you unpopular. The thing with Stannis is that a lot of his unpopularity stems from him doing decidedly unrighteous things (like burning the Seven on DS and executing the men who tried to defend their religion.) He is a MIX of good and bad, both in intentions and actions.

Stannis does not view burning the seven or executing men(that he views as traitors) as unrighteous, since he did it in service to his god. He did not execute men trying to defend their religion(Selyse and Mel executed them).

Stannis may have committed bad actions, but he has good intentions.

[butterbumps!]

Could you explain this one for me?

I assume it's something like despite the descent into darkness turning his mentor into Stannenberg, Davos is uncomfortable and somewhat manipuled, yet still keeps faith in Stannis as the man who taught him justice by separating the molecules of his finger from the isotope of his hand.

[A Man Has Said]

[...]And you misinterpreted the thread title right there; when OP said likeable, he meant likeable to us real world fans, not Westerosi people :P But I'll reply to it anyway; Stannis uses the red faith as political leverage because of a combination of 2 reasons:

1. He doesn't give a shit about what the High Septon thinks (religious fanaticism isn't really the source of a lot of military opposition to Stannis so Stannis doesn't care about it)

2. He isn't that good at PR it seems

I think you might have a slightly exaggerated idea of how popular Stannis is in the real world, because he appears on this particular forum to have a lot of fans - but that's just due to the existence of a Stannis Champions Club that dominates all threads with his name in the title. I don't think there are more than a couple of dozen people in this club, tbh. FYI there are almost 75,000 members registered to westeros.org.

[Toxspecific]

No. This is what Martin is saying. That quote that you've been using correlates Stannis' righteousness with knowing about the real threat.

No. That's what that quote by Martin is saying. So, in reality, when using this quote to prove that Stannis is holistically justified, it actually hurts your case, because the author is only attributing "righteousness" to Stannis going to the Wall.

All this stuff you're talking about falls under the "in spite of all this" part of Martin's quote. He's the one who is not signing off on calling this stuff "righteous."

Actually, that is exactly what Martin's saying: 'And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.'

The ironic part of using this quote to defend Stannis holistically is that Martin is implicitly not calling any of the non-Other-related concerns and actions "righteous."

But that's exactly what this quote suggests. You can make an argument for Stannis being righteous about other things prior to this Others business, but that's not what is being said in this quote. This quote actually works against that assessment. If you want to make a "Stannis is righteous" argument in the future, especially about non-Wall related things, I think your case is stronger without this quote.

Holistically justified? This particular part caught my eye. By saying this you mean exactly what actions of Stannis are justified? What are you directly referring to? And I do not have the idea that going to the Wall justifies any sins he may have done, I just want to know what you had in your mind when you said justified.

And thinking about the words again, "Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.'" On reading it again I actually now do think this can be interpreted in different ways. Focusing on the first part of the sentence, it seems that this quote can be taken two or more ways. 1. GRRM is saying that after all Stannis has done, going to the Wall has shown he is a righteous man. 2. GRRM is saying going to the Wall was a righteous act indeed and doesn't really comment on Stannis' earlier deeds.

It is sort of vague, you're right. Sort of. And what I believe is the most likely meaning of this quote is that going to the Wall was given by Martin as a prime example of a righteous act, and that he is not really commenting on the stuff Stan did before the Wall. Close to number 2, I think, because I doubt Martin would really allow people to think going to the Wall was Stannis' redemption from evil, because it doesn't make sense. So number 1 is out for me.

People object to the advocation of the Wildlings because he had just defeated then let them through to bend the Knee to him? How is that any different from any battle in Westeros, ever? That's what happens the losers bend the knee and it's done. Just like the North or most of it Bent the Knee to KL after they lost. Just like the Reach, Dorne, and the Crown lands bent the knee to Robert, just like the Greyjoy's bent the knee to Robert after the Greyjoy rebellion. That's what the losers do in Westeros.

Their point is that unlike Robert beating the Greyjoys or the like, Stannis asked the wildlings to give up their faith. I do not like it, even though I seriously believe Stannis just did it as a ceremony to appease Melisandre (sooner he realizes her worth isn't that great the better) and won't give a shit if he sees one these wildlings praying to the old gods despite having entered his fold.

I think you might have a slightly exaggerated idea of how popular Stannis is in the real world, because he appears on this particular forum to have a lot of fans - but that's just due to the existence of a Stannis Champions Club that dominates all threads with his name in the title. I don't think there are more than a couple of dozen people in this club, tbh. FYI there are almost 75,000 members registered to westeros.org.

I'm getting very confused about what you're even talking about now. If we are talking is Stannis supposed to be likeable to asoiaf.westeros.org well then there is a fuckload more to his story than the red faith stuff.

[The Drunkard]

I don't know, do you know who Walter White and Jesse are ?

Yep, I'm a big fan of Breaking Bad. But it seems to me that Stannis gets progressively more likeable and ''better'' as the series goes on, whereas Walt just gets exponentially worse. And with Davos/Jesse, where Stannis values Davos' loyalty/service/honesty, Walt seems to treat Jesse as nothing more than a tool to be used, not a person worth listening to.

I assume it's something like despite the descent into darkness turning his mentor into Stannenberg, Davos is uncomfortable and somewhat manipuled, yet still keeps faith in Stannis as the man who taught him justice by separating the molecules of his finger from the isotope of his hand.

I suppose I do see the link in Stan/Walt requiring the trusty assistant to do things they find uncomfortable.

[A Man Has Said]

People object to the advocation of the Wildlings because he had just defeated then let them through to bend the Knee to him? How is that any different from any battle in Westeros, ever? That's what happens the losers bend the knee and it's done. Just like the North or most of it Bent the Knee to KL after they lost. Just like the Reach, Dorne, and the Crown lands bent the knee to Robert, just like the Greyjoy's bent the knee to Robert after the Greyjoy rebellion. That's what the losers do in Westeros.

Was there something about "(Mind you I don't disagree with that decision, but quite a few people in universe do.)" that you failed to comprehend? By the way, when I mentioned people in universe I was primarily thinking of Bowen Marsh and the faction that stabbed Jon.

You see, this is what frustrates a lot of people when dealing with members of "the club." You're all willfully blind to anything that gets in the way of scoring cheap points. I mean, nice argument Creighton. You managed to knock down the straw man that you yourself erected.

[butterbumps!]

Holistically justified? This particular part caught my eye. By saying this you mean exactly what actions of Stannis are justified? What are you directly referring to? And I do not have the idea that going to the Wall justifies any sins he may have done, I just want to know what you had in your mind when you said justified.

Tox, here's the issue in a nutshell. You've been using Martin's quote to say that Martin sees (and therefore the reader should also see) that Stannis is "righteous." You even went so far as to claim that the quote meant that Martin believes Stannis has done more good than bad. This is what "holistically justified" means. You have been trying to prove that Stannis falls squarely into a determination of "righteous." As in, Stannis is overwhelmingly righteous.

Unfortunately for the way you've been using this quote to prove that Stannis is "righteous," the quote only proves that Martin feels that one single action by Stannis qualifies as "righteous." I'm not arguing whether Stannis is righteous or not either way (although you did above by trying to bring up Stannis' other goals as also righteous). I'm speaking to the way this quote has been used by you and others in this thread, and instead of building your case for "righteous Stannis," it actually deflates the point you're trying to make.