Stannis is NOT a hypocrite

[aceluby]

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.

Actually, fair winds was the prime reason and it's Mel that convinces him of that. It's not like he was on the chopping block, he was in a dungeon, was highborn, and was claiming innocence. He should have had to opportunity to take the black at the very least, they were going to the Wall after all and the NW was asking for help... Under this same logic what Aerys did to Brandon Stark (and many others) was perfectly reasonable because he was a traitor.

But like I said before, I've heard all the justifications for every action he's done, I don't want to debate this. It's boring. Glossing over his darker actions as 'justified' is doing a disservice to his character development.

[David Selig]

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

He was speaking about false lords (as in "ones who commit treason and rebel"), not false kings.

As for the burnings, I need to re-read that passage where Davos said that. And Stannis burns criminals. Aerys burned innocents.

Burnings? That wasn't what I was talking about at all.

Again - Stannis claimed that a man should stay loyal to the king. Period. Doesn't matter if his liege lord rebels. But he didn't follow up on that himself since he rebelled against Aerys. So he's a hypocrite.

[TheMaxx]

I hope he realized, by others actions and his owns, he was wrong when he said that. I'm sure by now he knows rebellion becomes necessary. And I can anticipate you now bringing up the point of why he rebelled against Joffrey in the same book as when he said this; because he never accepted Joffrey as his King, never swore the oath.

[aceluby]

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

Ned found out while Robert was hunting and was planning on telling him when he got back. Stannis found out a year before that and had plenty of opportunity to tell him or Ned. I also find it funny that his 'unconfirmed' susupican of incest isn't enough to tell your king, but it is enough to start a war once he's dead, expect the realm to declare fealty, and give you rights to burn whatever and whoever you want 'in the name of the king'. Yet more evidence of hypocrisy.

[EstEst]

Not saving your King when you could have IS treason.

If Stannis did tell Robert, it would only serve to get Robert killed. Not getting your King into mortal danger when you could is not treason.

[TheMaxx]

Ned found out while Robert was hunting and was planning on telling him when he got back. Stannis found out a year before that and had plenty of opportunity to tell him or Ned. I also find it funny that his 'unconfirmed' susupican of incest isn't enough to tell your king, but it is enough to start a war once he's dead, expect the realm to declare fealty, and give you rights to burn whatever and whoever you want 'in the name of the king'. Yet more evidence of hypocrisy.

I already said, Stannis very probably didn't expect Robert to take kindly to his suspicions especially if they turned out to be false which would cause a hell lot of tension with House Lannister.

He couldn't anticipate that after two decades the Lannisters would finally decide to kill Robert somehow.

If Stannis did tell Robert, it would only serve to get Robert killed. Not getting your King into mortal danger when you could is not treason.

[illrede]

I have become convinced that the driving force of this argument is disinterest in understanding the concept of a rightful king, which makes Stannis's actions and concerns appear inexplicable at best and whimsical in the main.

If we must elide his values, look at where they become snarled, at what Stannis agonizes over and takes an inordinate amount of time to decide. Whether or not to oppose Aerys or Robert; it must have been a hefty calculation for somebody, but we've not met them- the Tyrell's may have qualified their support for realpolitk, Lannisters perhaps the same if not for pride, everybody else lined up on one side or another readily enough and where there was doubt the Sisters' thinking probably represents it- but here is a member of a House apparently being exterminated "just in case" due to the activities of a third party and it is affirmed to be the hardest choice in his lifetime.

Getting an answer if a subject could be sacrificed to obtain overwhelming advantage in a war to correct usurpation and save the world at once that was otherwise lost took months. That is orders of magnitude longer than equivalent decisions being made by others in comparable situations in the story have required. And it was decided by somebody that understood him stepping in and deciding for him!

There is a very real and personally effecting system of values at work here. Whether or not it can be understood, it's clearly dominating his thinking and his life.

[Truly Just Man]

Not saving your King when you could have IS treason.

He actually tried. He told John Arryn, because His brother didn't bother listening to anything Stannis has ever said. What was He supposed to do? In fact Renly was hunting with Robert the time He got killed.

Yet, He isn't charged for treason, as He could have tried to save Robert.

Stannis is no traitor. He stood up against the Mad King because He had duty to his family and older brother. He accepted every insult Robert did to him, because It was his duty to do so, yes He complained, but He never opposed his King. It is not Stannis' fault that his older brother is not competent enough to rule a kingdom.

One more thing - Stannis is a small council member. I think Varys is the one who was supposed to let Robert know that his wife was giving him horns, Spying is his field of expertise, no?

[TheMaxx]

He actually tried. He told John Arryn, because His brother didn't bother listening to anything Stannis has ever said. What was He supposed to do? In fact Renly was hunting with Robert the time He got killed.

Yet, He isn't charged for treason, as He could have tried to save Robert.

Stannis is no traitor. He stood up against the Mad King because He had duty to his family and older brother. He accepted every insult Robert did to him, because It was his duty to do so, yes He complained, but He never opposed his King. It is not Stannis' fault that his older brother is not competent enough to rule a kingdom.

One more thing - Stannis is a small council member. I think Varys is the one who was supposed to let Robert know that his wife was giving him horns, Spying is his field of expertise, no?

He told John Arryn? Why the hell didn't I say this before. I will now kick myself :D

[Truly Just Man]

He told John Arryn? Why the hell didn't I say this before. I will now kick myself :D

About time we are told He commited trason to his queen this way, so this makes him a hypocrite, you know... ;-)

[TheMaxx]

About time we are told He commited trason to his queen this way, so this makes him a hypocrite, you know... ;-)

LOL. That will be a good one. I think Stannis has a good head on his shoulders when it comes to keeping it on his shoulders. :P

[Truly Just Man]

LOL. That will be a good one. I think Stannis has a good head on his shoulders when it comes to keeping it on his shoulders. :P

Biggest proof is He made it alive through ADOD, unlike many others ;-)

[TheMaxx]

Biggest proof is He made it alive through ADOD, unlike many others ;-)

Yeah. He's a cockroach, he doesn't die :p

[aceluby]

I already said, Stannis very probably didn't expect Robert to take kindly to his suspicions especially if they turned out to be false which would cause a hell lot of tension with House Lannister.

He couldn't anticipate that after two decades the Lannisters would finally decide to kill Robert somehow.

So you admit that it was a false equivalence on your part?

[aceluby]

If Stannis did tell Robert, it would only serve to get Robert killed. Not getting your King into mortal danger when you could is not treason.

Why would it serve to get Robert killed? That doesn't make sense.

[TheMaxx]

Why would it serve to get Robert killed? That doesn't make sense.

It makes loads of sense; If the Lannisters knew Stannis was filling Robert's ears they'd have him killed way sooner.

So you admit that it was a false equivalence on your part?

How is it a false equivalence on my part?

[EstEst]

Why would it serve to get Robert killed? That doesn't make sense.

Because if Robert admitted the truth of it, he'd

1) executed Cersei and Jamie for treason (and that's treason);

2) sent all three "abomination" children to the Night's Watch or Silent sisters, respectively;

3) disinherited them;

and 4) named Lannisters the Enemy of the Crown No.1. Took their lands, banished them 100 years ahead from Kingsguard and other honorable positions, etc., depending on the degree of his wrath.

Robert would need evidence. He'd have his bastards as kind of circumstantial evidence, so if only Robert was given the idea of cheating on him, Lannisters would have to remove all bastards (what they did) + Edric Storm, before Robert could have an eye on them.

This would be kind of evidence in itself, there was a risk that they would be too late (Robert only needed to see one), and anyway there could be other Robert's bastards only he would know, so (just in case) Lannisters would have to get him killed, and very quickly. Lannisters would have to secure their lives, lands, and long happy kingship for their kids. Robert was doomed the moment he was told about the incest. (regardless of whether or not he would believe it at first.)

I think a hunting accident would do - not suspicious, not messy, not out of his usual way.

[Mikkel]

Robert was doomed the moment he was told about the incest. (regardless of whether or not he would believe it at first.)

I agree with the rest of your post, however I think Robert would be okay if - and only if - he was told, in private, by someone he trusted, with evidence to back it up. Jon Arryn was trying to get that, Ned as well - Stannis, on the other hand, was not someone Robert would trust without ironclad evidence, something Stannis didn't have. Any scenario in which Robert doesn't take immediate and very decisive action leads to Robert's death. Ned knew this, and wanted to give Cersei a chance to get out of King's Landing. Obviously, that was a mistake. However, there was never any point in time where Stannis had the evidence he needed to overcome Robert's dislike and lack of trust in him. Stannis knew this, and knew that trying to tell Robert would likely lead to not only his own death, but likely Robert and Renly's as well.

[EstEst]

@Mikkel: You're right, of course. And if Robert was told without proper evidence right at hand, he would not be very good in consealing his grudge until these evidence would appear. He was not a private kind of person, would spit his feelings right then and there. So much for a conspiracy against Lannisters.

Finding "in private" would be difficult too, I suppose. Gods, even his squire was Lannister!

[Gargarax]

I'd still like to know how all the fervent Stannis fans defend that Stannis seized NW property and let Mel burn weirwoods. I've just re-read the chapter where Maester Luwin tells Bran about the war between the first men and the CotF, which was the last time weirwood trees were burnt, and it meant chaos for Westeros. That kind of confirmed my suspicion that unless the books take an unlikely twist and reveal that Mels actually is the saviour come again, the burning of the weirwoods spelled Stannis' doom. I'm fine with a bit of pragmatism on his part, but I think this was when he crossed the line, as this served no purpose (except - who knows - to bring about the snow on Stannis' army, the CotF were known for controlling the elements to fight their enemies).