Stannis is NOT a hypocrite

[TheMaxx]

Probably not, but the Riverlands (and the smallfolk included) were still better off with Robb than with Tywin's dogs Clegane, Lorch and Hoat.

Without a doubt. But they still suffered badly.

My point was, in summary, that Stannis can not be held to unrealistic standards and then be declared a hypocrite for it. Caring for the realm meant not being an asshole of a lord, but didn't mean you'd go uber peace loving hippy to protect it. Justice, revenge are very strong themes in this series and Stannis is being unfairly judged if he is being expected to have a revolutionized mindset (peace for the realm at all costs!).

[David Selig]

True, but what you're replying to is a wrongly put defense of Stannis. Renly wasn't violence loving or anything that bad really, and Stannis obviously did not have the intentions of saving Westeros in mind when he killed Renly. He had in his mind justice.

Justice, huh. So when is Stannis executing himself?

No. Did Robb have the Riverlands' wellbeing in thought when he fought his war? No.

Actually, partly yes. Part of the reason Robb came North was to help the Tully defend their lands.

[Draco_Dracul]

Hmmm.

Sarcasm on the word ruined, honest on the keeping the Realm together in Baratheon hands.

[Arya kiddin']

Sarcasm on the word ruined, honest on the keeping the Realm together in Baratheon hands.

Thanks for clearing it up. :)

[aceluby]

Stannis believes that paying lip service to the Red God gives him power, and everything he does in the name of that religion is a testament to this view. He burns people and religious institutions to strengthen the converts' faith in him. This is one of the reasons they are willing to cross a bridge of burning ships to take KL, fight a wilding horde twenty times their size equipped with mammoths and giants, and march through a blizzard, all in his name.

And yet, Stannis is pragmatic. He only burns traitors, not anyone who is unwilling to embrace the Red God. In fact, he flat out refuses to burn infidels once he has Northmen in his army. He does not even demand that all his men convert, and does not treat Kings Men's faith in the Seven or Northmen's faith in the Old Gods as warranting unequal treatment. He has a Queen's Man as Hand, yet conversion does not save Alester Florent from burning for his treason. Nor does being a King's Man mean that Davos is unacceptable as Hand. Furthermore, the only religious institutions he destroys are his own sept, at Dragonstone, and his own godswood, at Storm's End. He could have demanded the burning of all godswoods and septs under his control, but doesn't, not wanting to alienate his lords. This isn't the action of a religious fanatic, but of a man using religion for his own ends. That's all Stannis has really ever done as far as the Red God is concerned.

He forces the wildings to convert in order to fast-track their assimilation. It's one thing to follow a King you bend the knee to, and its quite another to follow a messiah you worship. As far as Selyse is concerned, as Lady of Dragonstone, she is in charge of Dragonstone in his absence, a common practice in the Middle Ages. Moreover, Alester Florent was a traitor; if Stannis didn't want him burned, he'd have taken issue with the fact that he was.

Indeed, he's not. He's a Dark Knight, willing to resort to whatever it takes to protect his people.

Stannis playing lip service to anyone for any reason is in itself, hypocritical. And Florent was burned by Mel for favorable winds. There's no need to justify all of his actions, I already know all of the justifications and I'm not here to nitpick. Like I said, I like the character, but he is hypocritical sometimes even though he truly tries not to. It's the main flaw of his character and I'd argue it's what makes him interesting. There have been dark knights in countless stories, what makes this arc unique is Stannis is more complex than that because he wants to be the white knight, wants the recognition of it, wants only to do his duty, but has come up short time and time again. Finally he is making headway, but in order to make it he's had to sacrifice core beliefs of law and order. WAY more interesting than a 'dark knight willing to do whatever it takes to protect his people', IMO of course.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

How is burning traitors hypocritical?

[( Bloodraven )]

I dont think Stan using the Red God makes him a hypocrite. It makes him pragmatic. If anything makes him a hypocrite, it's when he left KL and failed to inform Robert about the incest - he failed to do his DUTY. I do wish we have more info on his reasons/mindset during that period. It would be really interesting.

There have been dark knights in countless stories, what makes this arc unique is Stannis is more complex than that because he wants to be the white knight, wants the recognition of it, wants only to do his duty, but has come up short time and time again. Finally he is making headway, but in order to make it he's had to sacrifice core beliefs of law and order. WAY more interesting than a 'dark knight willing to do whatever it takes to protect his people', IMO of course.

Agreed. Quite Faustian.

[TheMaxx]

Justice, huh. So when is Stannis executing himself?

Actually, partly yes. Part of the reason Robb came North was to help the Tully defend their lands.

Partly, no. Robb still fought a war in the Riverlands. He didn't go to unrealistic lengths to protect it, just like nobody else would. Same goes for Stannis. By the way, what should Stannis execute himself for? Killing the usurper Renly? Doing what exactly?

Besides, you didn't even comment on the main point of my post which makes me think you missed the whole point of it. Justice and revenge were just two motivations I gave as an example for some lord fighting a war and not considering safety of the realm important enough to make him cancel his plans.

Stannis isn't guilty of murder; he burned some criminals, he killed a usurper, and his leech didn't cause the red wedding.

[devilrob6]

Stannis playing lip service to anyone for any reason is in itself, hypocritical. And Florent was burned by Mel for favorable winds. There's no need to justify all of his actions, I already know all of the justifications and I'm not here to nitpick. Like I said, I like the character, but he is hypocritical sometimes even though he truly tries not to. It's the main flaw of his character and I'd argue it's what makes him interesting. There have been dark knights in countless stories, what makes this arc unique is Stannis is more complex than that because he wants to be the white knight, wants the recognition of it, wants only to do his duty, but has come up short time and time again. Finally he is making headway, but in order to make it he's had to sacrifice core beliefs of law and order. WAY more interesting than a 'dark knight willing to do whatever it takes to protect his people', IMO of course.

Florent was burned because he commited treason, he was condemned to death for it. You make it sound sas if he was randomly picked only becasue they needed favourable wind. That part was just Stannis being pragmatic, He's combining an execution, which was going to happen anyways, with pleasing Mel / Queen's men. If it works then he has good wind, if it doesn't nothing is lost, besides a life that was going to end anyways. You can argue about the method of execution, There are quicker ways to kill somebody, Stannis himself admits in the Theon sample chapter that death by fire is worse than death by the sword, But good winds were not the prime reason why the man was burned.

[David Selig]

How is burning traitors hypocritical?

It is when you are a traitor yourself.

Partly, no. Robb still fought a war in the Riverlands. He didn't go to unrealistic lengths to protect it, just like nobody else would.

The Lannisters have already invaded the Riverlands. How was Robb supposed to defend these lands without fighting the enemy there?

By the way, what should Stannis execute himself for? Killing the usurper Renly? Doing what exactly?

For being a traitor himself.

Besides, you didn't even comment on the main point of my post which makes me think you missed the whole point of it. Justice and revenge were just two motivations I gave as an example for some lord fighting a war and not considering safety of the realm important enough to make him cancel his plans.

What's there to comment on? Other lords were selfish, that's a given, not sure how it's relevant. Other lords don't pat themselves on the back time and time again how they are thinking about the realm and acting to protect its safety, unlike Stannis.

[TheMaxx]

It is when you are a traitor yourself.

The Lannisters have already invaded the Riverlands. How was Robb supposed to defend these lands without fighting the enemy there?

For being a traitor himself.

What's there to comment on? Other lords were selfish, that's a given, not sure how it's relevant. Other lords don't pat themselves on the back time and time again how they are thinking about the realm and acting to protect its safety, unlike Stannis.

You're missing the point so damn badly. Robb couldnt defend his lands without fighting on them, that is true, obviously. Physically impossible not to fight in the Riverlands and guess what, I'm not expecting him to.

And Stannis is a traitor to who? Do you advocate the nonsensical opinion that Renly was the rightful King? Or did Stannis 'betray' Aerys? :P As for you saying Stannis constantly praises himself for saving the realm, he may brag a bit, but why not? He's the only lord who did something which did not give him a definite strategic or political advantage yet was necessary to save the realm.

[David Selig]

You're missing the point so damn badly. Robb couldnt defend his lands without fighting on them, that is true, obviously. Physically impossible not to fight in the Riverlands and guess what, I'm not expecting him to.

No, you are shifting the goalposts. All this started when you claimed that Robb didn't have the well being of the Riverlands in thought when he fought the war.

Or did Stannis 'betray' Aerys?

Of course he did. That's a given. Even he admits it.

[Sullen]

And Stannis is a traitor to who? Do you advocate the nonsensical opinion that Renly was the rightful King? Or did Stannis 'betray' Aerys? :P As for you saying Stannis constantly praises himself for saving the realm, he may brag a bit, but why not? He's the only lord who did something which did not give him a definite strategic or political advantage yet was necessary to save the realm.

He did technically betray Aerys.

And he abandoned his brother in King's Landing without letting him know of what he discovered. Whether or not Stannis thought Robert would believe him, he had to tell him, it was his duty to his King. But, instead, he scurried away on his island, brooding and amassing an army, waiting for Robert to croak at the hands of the Lannisters.

If that is not treason, then nothing is.

[TheMaxx]

He did technically betray Aerys.

And he abandoned his brother in King's Landing without letting him know of what he discovered. Whether or not Stannis thought Robert would believe him, he had to tell him, it was his duty to his King. But, instead, he scurried away on his island, brooding and amassing an army, waiting for Robert to croak at the hands of the Lannisters.

If that is not treason, then nothing is.

He didn't betray Robert at all. He took time to save his own ass from being murdered then gather men to fight the Lannisters. And Aerys betrayed Stannis when he broke his feudal contract to his vassals by unfairly asking for Robert's head; that contract being to protect his vassals.

No, you are shifting the goalposts. All this started when you claimed that Robb didn't have the well being of the Riverlands in thought when he fought the war.

No I'm not. You think I'm saying Robb didn't give a shit about the Riverlands like, say, Tywin's attitude towards it was; what I'm saying is Robb didn't go to great lengths to protect it. He wouldn't cancel an attack on Tywin if it meant sparing that little village next to the Trident, or whatever.

And Stannis reminisces about the war and how his decision was tough only because of the strong sense of law he has. Aerys already broke his own deal as King to protect his subjects, and everyone in this series puts family before their King. Robb did too. Ned did too. Jon Arryn did too, you can say.

Again, Stannis being held to standards others are pretty much exempted from.

[Sullen]

He didn't betray Robert at all. He took time to save his own ass from being murdered then gather men to fight the Lannisters. And Aerys betrayed Stannis when he broke his feudal contract to his vassals by unfairly asking for Robert's head; that contract being to protect his vassals.

Taking the time to save your own ass when it means leaving your King in the hands of scheming murderers is treason. Stannis doesn't even bother to reply to the summons of Eddard, a man known for his loyalty and love towards Robert. (He disobeys a direct order from the Hand, and thus the King, that also makes him a traitor)

Should Renly be forgiven of treason because "He was saving his own ass by crowning himself" and did so to fight the Lannisters?

[David Selig]

Again, Stannis being held to standards others are pretty much exempted from.

Why do you keep bringing up what others did? It's irrelevent. The whole point of this thread is to judge Stannis by his own proclaimed standards which he uses to judge others - that's the way to determine whether he's a hypocrite or not.

Stannis himself stated in no uncertain terms

“It is every man’s duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false,” Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument."

Even Davos called him out on this blatant hypocrisy on his part by reminding him of Aerys and Stannis admitted that Davos had a point.

[TheMaxx]

Why do you keep bringing up what others did? It's irrelevent. The whole point of this thread is to judge Stannis by his own proclaimed standards which he uses to judge others - that's the way to determine whether he's a hypocrite or not.

Stannis himself stated in no uncertain terms

Even Davos called him out on this blatant hypocrisy on his part by reminding him of Aerys and Stannis admitted that Davos had a point.

Bringing up others is not irrelevant when I'm talking about how it was perfectly normal for Stannis to not care about the realm as much as some posters think he should. When you're deciding whether something's normal, comparisons are indeed made.

As for the burnings, I need to re-read that passage where Davos said that. And Stannis burns criminals. Aerys burned innocents. Get your facts straight. And Stannis was obviously quite badly wrong when he said that every man should serve his King even if the King proves false. Although he may have been talking to a different level of extremity when he said 'false'. He could've just meant corrupt or inefficient, not burn-you-in-your-armour insane.

Taking the time to save your own ass when it means leaving your King in the hands of scheming murderers is treason. Stannis doesn't even bother to reply to the summons of Eddard, a man known for his loyalty and love towards Robert. (He disobeys a direct order from the Hand, and thus the King, that also makes him a traitor)

Should Renly be forgiven of treason because "He was saving his own ass by crowning himself" and did so to fight the Lannisters?

His brother had been in the hands of scheming murderers since he married Cersei more than a decade ago and allowed the Lannisters too much influence at court. And Stannis genuinely thought Robert hated him; he may well have been wary of the idea of Robert actually getting pissed off at Stannis suggesting he was being cuckolded or whatever.

Stannis wasn't in a position to do anything in King's Landing, or didn't have much chance of accomplishing anything. With Jon Arryn dead plans were likely made for him which nobody would be able to stop.

And it isn't treason even if Stannis could have saved Robert. Not saving your King =/= Killing him or fighting against him.

[aceluby]

Again, Stannis being held to standards others are pretty much exempted from.

As already stated, Stannis is being held to HIS standards. You are a hypocrite, by definition, if you have standards you hold others to that you do not live up to yourself.

[Sullen]

And it isn't treason even if Stannis could have saved Robert. Not saving your King =/= Killing him or fighting against him.

Not saving your King when you could have IS treason.

His brother had been in the hands of scheming murderers since he married Cersei more than a decade ago and allowed the Lannisters too much influence at court. And Stannis genuinely thought Robert hated him; he may well have been wary of the idea of Robert actually getting pissed off at Stannis suggesting he was being cuckolded or whatever.

Stannis wasn't in a position to do anything in King's Landing, or didn't have much chance of accomplishing anything. With Jon Arryn dead plans were likely made for him which nobody would be able to stop.

Doesn't matter.

As Stannis himself said, it is any man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, no matter what, even if you think your older brother doesn't like you and won't believe you.

Stannis didn't only contradict himself once, but twice... with Aerys AND with Robert.

[TheMaxx]

Not saving your King when you could have IS treason.

Doesn't matter.

As Stannis himself said, it is any man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, no matter what, even if you think your older brother doesn't like you and won't believe you.

Stannis didn't only contradict himself once, but twice... with Aerys AND with Robert.

It isn't. If it is, then Ned could similarly have saved the King if he had shared his suspicions. Why didn't he? He and Robert were tight. And yet Ned was not a traitor.

And not sharing your suspicion (unconfirmed suspicion of incest) with your King isn't treason, it's odd you're changing definition of the word. Stannis didn't share the info about the incest, not like he banged Cersei himself.

And like I said, what he said about false Kings he was either

1. Wrong

2. Referring to corruption and stuff like that not hugely out of proportion cruelty and insanity

As already stated, Stannis is being held to HIS standards. You are a hypocrite, by definition, if you have standards you hold others to that you do not live up to yourself

dThis doesn't make sense. Forum posters are the ones making the standards not Stannis lol