why did Stannis mock Maester Cressen?

[Nictarion]

Nope. They were burned specifically to appease the red god. Religion was not a primary factor in the death itself, but in the manner of death. And that, as I tried to explain above, makes all the difference.

It was also done once to get favorable winds. If your willing to do that, where does it end?

[EstEst]

Nope. They were burned specifically to appease the red god. Religion was not a primary factor in the death itself, but in the manner of death. And that, as I tried to explain above, makes all the difference.

I think Stannis regarded this manner of death as the very exceptional case. On the march to Winterfell he allowed no burnings for religious reasons, despite their really, really desperate situation. That makes me think that the primary factor for burnings, when they did take place, was not exactly religious.

I'd rather say, Stannis is a pragmatist. If they were going to be executed all the same, for treason or cannibalism or other griveous crimes, let them be of some use. Like Jon with those two stiffs that he placed in the ice cell just in case they'd resurrect and tell something useful. Not dignified, but very practical. And it's only a bonus that this practical thing coincides with religious feelings of whoever believes in R'hllor stuff. That's not in a defence of burnings, just as an explanation of motives as I think they are.

Edit: @Nictarion: do you ask "where does it end" meaning that Stannis is prepared to burn anyone at his will for the favorable winds? Florent was executed for treason, not "to get favorable winds". But that was a motive for the specific manner of execution, you're right. Confirms my idea of pragmatic approach. Terrible, that's true. Religious fanatism - that's not true: actually quite the opposite to fanatism at all. It will end as soon as traitors end, it will remain exceptional measure, and it will not be expanded beyond lawful execution.

[Antler's Fury]

He does not shield him from the first insult, only from the second. It sure was nice of him to stop there, but the damage was done. The first quote has nothing to do with mockery.

Actually it did. Cressen had already been mocked and laughed at by that point. Stannis wanted him to retire and leave his duties to Pylos. It's why he did not invite him to dinner, and why he's bluntly telling Cressen he doesn't need him any more; he wants Cressen to stop interfering in a court negatively disposed towards him.

His mind does not wander there, on the contrary: earlier Stannis accused Cressen of mocking him when he adressed him as "Your Grace", which explains the quote here.

But his mind does wanter during the chapter:

"Of late, when he woke from restless dreams in which the red woman figured disturbingly, he often did not know where he was."

"His lord’s face swam up before him,"

"What had happened to Maester Pylos? Truly, he did not understand."

If Cressen wasn't confused at times, Stannis wouldn't have tried to put him aside and use Pylos.

As Nictarion said, so was Aemon, and the NW still saw his use.

Aemon was given servants to help him with his duties, and Sam was eventually tapped to replace him. Pylos was in the exact same position: he helped Cressen and eventually replaced him when Cressen died.

Nope. They were burned specifically to appease the red god. Religion was not a primary factor in the death itself, but in the manner of death. And that, as I tried to explain above, makes all the difference.

If this had been the case, Stannis would have burned random King's Men or Northerners. He uses burning very carefully, and only burns people already guilty of crimes. Hence, the religious motivation must have been secondary. Heck, Stannis flat out refuses to burn Northmen for purely religious purposes when his Queen's Men want it. This proves that the execution of the cannibals must have been for their actual crime, done by fire to gain any additional benefit derived from keeping the Red God happy.

[Nictarion]

Aemon was given servants to help him with his duties, and Sam was eventually tapped to replace him. Pylos was in the exact same position: he helped Cressen and eventually replaced him when Cressen died.

It felt more like Pylos already had taken over before Cressen even died though.

[Antler's Fury]

It was also done once to get favorable winds. If your willing to do that, where does it end?

It was done because Alester was a traitor. He was burned rather than beheaded to gain what benefit could be gained in appeasing the Red God. That said, Stannis actually explicitly refuse to burn innocent people in the North, so the idea that he's going to go off the rails and start randomly burning people like Aerys clearly isn't supported by the text.

It felt more like Pylos already had taken over before Cressen even died though.

I really don't want to go into a discussion of Cressen and Aemon's various ailments, but even if this was the case, it only proves that Cressen was feebler than Aemon. I really don't see why this is such a big deal. Cressen could not deal with the ravens, as he himself admits. Stannis needed someone who could, hence his using Pylos.

[Gargarax]

I'd rather say, Stannis is a pragmatist. If they were going to be executed all the same, for treason or cannibalism or other griveous crimes, let them be of some use. Like Jon with those two stiffs that he placed in the ice cell just in case they'd resurrect and tell something useful. Not dignified, but very practical. And it's only a bonus that this practical thing coincides with religious feelings of whoever believes in R'hllor stuff. That's not in a defence of burnings, just as an explanation of motives as I think they are.

I don't disagree that it is pragmatic, but just because something is pragmatic it doesn't have to be clever or even reasonable. Pragmatism is never a good excuse. It's a heavy comparison, I know, but many atrocities commited in concentration camps were considered pragmatic by the Nazis (like making soap from human fat), and were in fact so utterly horrible because they were pragmatic. As for the cannibals in Stannis' army, eating the dead was far more 'positively' pragmatic than burning the cannibals was - the first made use of the dead, the second use of the dying. Both terrible, but miles apart. And burning criminals can't be compared to deep-freezing possible white walkers, not really (that's kind of comparing a stoning to an autopsy).

If this had been the case, Stannis would have burned random King's Men or Northerners. He uses burning very carefully, and only burns people already guilty of crimes. Hence, the religious motivation must have been secondary. Heck, Stannis flat out refuses to burn Northmen for purely religious purposes when his Queen's Men want it. This proves that the execution of the cannibals must have been for their actual crime, done by fire to gain any additional benefit derived from keeping the Red God happy.

I agree that Stannis doesn't sacrifice the innocent, which would be truly fanatic. Still, the motivation to burn them instead of beheading them was purely religious. It doesn't make him a lunatic, but the crime is the same. Imagine the outrage if Dany would feed the criminals at Meereen to her dragons, in an arena with people watching and cheering. What Stannis does is exactly that. The heads on spikes and the wolf head on Robb's body are in a similar category, although in those cases it's "only" the dead that are made use of, not the dying.

I start to believe that the reason why people find excuses for Stannis' darker deeds is the lack of a Stannis POV. Without one, there is so much room for speculation. Inside, he could be that shining true knight painted dark by circumstances, or he could be Westeros' number one personification of hypocricy. Or, most likely, both or neither.

[Antler's Fury]

I don't disagree that it is pragmatic, but just because something is pragmatic it doesn't have to be clever or even reasonable. Pragmatism is never a good excuse. It's a heavy comparison, I know, but many atrocities commited in concentration camps were considered pragmatic by the Nazis (like making soap from human fat), and were in fact so utterly horrible because they were pragmatic.

Only if you consider genocide to be more pragmatic than not committing genocide.

As for the cannibals in Stannis' army, eating the dead was far more 'positively' pragmatic than burning the cannibals was - the first made use of the dead, the second use of the dying. Both terrible, but miles apart. And burning criminals can't be compared to deep-freezing possible white walkers, not really (that's kind of comparing a stoning to an autopsy).

Debateable. One could just as easily argue that it was more pragmatic to treat the dead with dignity rather than resorting to something as gruesome as canniballism, especially since other men in the army were clearly hungry but did not resort to canniballism.

I agree that Stannis doesn't sacrifice the innocent, which would be truly fanatic. Still, the motivation to burn them instead of beheading them was purely religious. It doesn't make him a lunatic, but the crime is the same.

What crime, exactly? Stannis was executing law breakers. How is burning criminals alive somehow more barbaric than leaving them in cages to rot, or amputating limbs, or castrating them? The problem with people zeroing in on the burnings is that they act like Stannis' method of execution was singularly evil, as though the rest of Westeros was resorting to lethal injections and community service or something. Stannis needs to be judged based on the standards of his era, and those standards are pretty low.

[Gargarax]

Debateable. One could just as easily argue that it was more pragmatic to treat the dead with dignity rather than resorting to something as gruesome as canniballism, especially since other men in the army were clearly hungry but did not resort to canniballism.

What crime, exactly? Stannis was executing law breakers. How is burning criminals alive somehow more barbaric than leaving them in cages to rot, or amputating limbs, or castrating them? The problem with people zeroing in on the burnings is that they act like Stannis' method of execution was singularly evil, as though the rest of Westeros was resorting to lethal injections and community service or something. Stannis needs to be judged based on the standards of his era, and those standards are pretty low.

First - I was laughing pretty hard at the community service idea ;)

In regard to your first statment: Eating the dead doesn't inflict insufferable pain on anyone, while burning does, and it served to satisfy a very basic human need - eating - while burning them meant torturing them to get the favor of a cruel god. Personally, I'd sooner see somebody eaten than burnt to get a better harvest (or whatever the sacrifice be for).

And what crime? Sacrificing people for religious purposes or actually any selfish purposes (Aerys also benefited from burning people - it have him a hard-on). Of course Stannis has reasons we are more ready to forgive (burning Florent most likely did save the NW after all). But people are also more likely to forgive you if you steal somebody's lunch than if you steal their car, which doesn't make you less of a thief. So while I'm not saying that Stannis is inherently evil and the burnings unforgivable, I am saying that he sacrificed his moral integrity with the first person he burnt.

You've got a point though that Stannis' actions should be based on Westerosi standards, and I agree that those are pretty low. So yes, burning them is terrible, but so is most of the physical punishment mentioned in the books and condemning Stannis on this basis alone would be wrong (I take much more issue with the fact that he allows weirwood burnings, by the way). However, I have the following problems with people trying to justify and downplay the burnings:

1. Yes, other rulers punish brutally as well. There are, however, examples of a more merciful deaths (Ned, Robb). They are held up as examples of just rulers following a moral code. It is against them that the burnings seem terrible. Remember that in the very first chapter of the series, a man is beheaded outside of Winterfell and much of that chapter is about justice and the dangers of a death sentence. Now Stannis inflicts a much more painful, dehumanising death on people who committed a lesser crime out of desparation. How can we not compare those situations and how can it not shed a very dark light on Stannis?

2. In many threads I've read on Dany, I was surprised how much scorn she received for some of the mistakes she's made and how people are convinced she'd be a terrible ruler. That's why I think my example, by which burning criminals is the same as feeding them to dragons in a public area would be, kind of nails it. Dany never does anything as crass as that, and is judged on lesser crimes that Stannis often gets away with in the forums. To me that seems pretty irrational.

3. As said in a post above, there are few precedents for burnings, those that we have were done by mad people (Aerys) or people in a moment of madness (Dany). For that and for other reasons (see posts above), the associations readers have with burning are a lot more negative than any other form of capital punishment. Yes, leaving people in cages to rot is also cruel, and so is cutting off body parts. But is something Stannis does okay because Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton did something similar? And wouldn't maiming the three cannibals be more merciful than burning them, despite the cruelty of the punishment? I'll gladly judge Stannis based on Tywin's or Roose's standards, but then again, I don't like them much either.

[EstEst]

First - I was laughing pretty hard at the community service idea ;)

That's why I think my example, by which burning criminals is the same as feeding them to dragons in a public area would be, kind of nails it. Dany never does anything as crass as that, and is judged on lesser crimes that Stannis often gets away with in the forums. To me that seems pretty irrational.

Kraznys mo Nakloz?

Dany burnt a man too, exactly in a public area. Explainable, since he was a criminal from Daenerys' point of view, but terrible all the same. Or, I'd say, all the more, since she didn't even try to make anything close to the court process. Ned, Robb and Stannis were the only ones whomaintained something close to normal judicial system. The others, including Dany, didn't even told criminals that they were criminals. (while by their own laws, they wee not.)

[GallowsKnight]

First - I was laughing pretty hard at the community service idea ;)

1.In regard to your first statment: Eating the dead doesn't inflict insufferable pain on anyone, while burning does, and it served to satisfy a very basic human need - eating - while burning them meant torturing them to get the favor of a cruel god. Personally, I'd sooner see somebody eaten than burnt to get a better harvest (or whatever the sacrifice be for).

And what crime? Sacrificing people for religious purposes or actually any selfish purposes (Aerys also benefited from burning people - it have him a hard-on). Of course Stannis has reasons we are more ready to forgive (burning Florent most likely did save the NW after all). But people are also more likely to forgive you if you steal somebody's lunch than if you steal their car, which doesn't make you less of a thief. So while I'm not saying that Stannis is inherently evil and the burnings unforgivable, I am saying that he sacrificed his moral integrity with the first person he burnt.

You've got a point though that Stannis' actions should be based on Westerosi standards, and I agree that those are pretty low. So yes, burning them is terrible, but so is most of the physical punishment mentioned in the books and condemning Stannis on this basis alone would be wrong (I take much more issue with the fact that he allows weirwood burnings, by the way). However, I have the following problems with people trying to justify and downplay the burnings:

1. Yes, other rulers punish brutally as well. There are, however, examples of a more merciful deaths (Ned, Robb). They are held up as examples of just rulers following a moral code. It is against them that the burnings seem terrible. Remember that in the very first chapter of the series, a man is beheaded outside of Winterfell and much of that chapter is about justice and the dangers of a death sentence. Now Stannis inflicts a much more painful, dehumanising death on people who committed a lesser crime out of desparation. How can we not compare those situations and how can it not shed a very dark light on Stannis?

2. In many threads I've read on Dany, I was surprised how much scorn she received for some of the mistakes she's made and how people are convinced she'd be a terrible ruler. That's why I think my example, by which burning criminals is the same as feeding them to dragons in a public area would be, kind of nails it. 2. Dany never does anything as crass as that, and is judged on lesser crimes that Stannis often gets away with in the forums. To me that seems pretty irrational.

3. As said in a post above, there are few precedents for burnings, those that we have were done by mad people (Aerys) or people in a moment of madness (Dany). For that and for other reasons (see posts above), the associations readers have with burning are a lot more negative than any other form of capital punishment. Yes, leaving people in cages to rot is also cruel, and so is cutting off body parts. But is something Stannis does okay because Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton did something similar? And wouldn't maiming the three cannibals be more merciful than burning them, despite the cruelty of the punishment? I'll gladly judge Stannis based on Tywin's or Roose's standards, but then again, I don't like them much either.

1. Cannibalism of the deceased is an issue in this situation. It is an army on the march made up by many different factions. Their actions break discipline and may lead to soliders "encouraging" an increase in the cold count.

2. Dany crucified and disemboweld 140-something people in a city square...

[Gargarax]

Kraznys mo Nakloz?

Dany burnt a man too, exactly in a public area. Explainable, since he was a criminal from Daenerys' point of view, but terrible all the same. Or, I'd say, all the more, since she didn't even try to make anything close to the court process. Ned, Robb and Stannis were the only ones whomaintained something close to normal judicial system. The others, including Dany, didn't even told criminals that they were criminals. (while by their own laws, they wee not.)

You got a point there, although his crimes were arguably far worse than those of the cannibals and the books leave no doubt that he deserved it - he tasted his own medicine because he wanted the dragons to do what Dany does to him. But yes, correct, maybe not Dany's finest hours either (though I guess most readers cheered for here in that scene more than ever before), but it's still a step away from burning people who commited a crime out of desperation . In my book, being merciless to the most cruel of slavers is more excusable than sacrificing humans to a fire god. Still, I agree that Dany's use of dragon fire doesn't make her much better than Stannis and Mel.

1. Cannibalism of the deceased is an issue in this situation. It is an army on the march made up by many different factions. Their actions break discipline and may lead to soliders "encouraging" an increase in the cold count.

2. Dany crucified and disemboweld 140-something people in a city square...

1. I agree. I'm not arguing they shouldn't be punished. I'm arguing they shouldn't be burnt.

2. Again, you're right, that's not nice either. I guess she kind of gets away with it a bit because she pays back villains in the same coin ('I punish you how you saw fit to punish others').

However, you both argue that Stannis and Dany are quite similar. I tried to make the point that Stannis gets away with crimes that are often held against Dany (not rarely by Stannis' supporters). So while I've probably gone to far in saying that Dany is still better than Stannis, I think I still have a point that she is certainly not worse in that respect. Their storyline are pretty identical anyway: both have noble goals, both are using fire in questionable ways, both are making morally questionable decisions to restore order, both justify their actions by pointing out their hereditary claim, both do at least one pretty admirable thing (saving the NW, freeing the slaves) and struggle with the aftermath of those deeds, etc ...

Oh boy have we come far off-topic ;)

[FacelessDude]

I think it was GRRM's way of making us readers sympathize for Maester Cressen. He's unappreciated and taken for granted in the end. I don't care what excuse people come up with, it was quite an odd command for Stannis to give. The idea that Stannis did it out if his righteous respect of the law is ridiculous.

Plus, Stannis will break a written law or custom if he deems it morally acceptable, or if it will aid him in taking the Iron Throne.

[EstEst]

@ Gargarax: It only recently occured to me that "fan"-grouping on this board is not just about book characters, it has much deeper roots. We group ourselves according to our standards of what is good, bad, excusable, or not. Funny that I didn't think of that earlier.

It seems to me that Stannis' group general views of life are closest to my own views. That's it. Stannis guys, I'd gladly have a beer or two with you in real life. :cheers:

OP, sorry for off-topic, but I think I contributed enough to it to be forgiven :) And thanks for this realization!

[Gargarax]

@ Gargarax: It only recently occured to me that "fan"-grouping on this board is not just about book characters, it has much deeper roots. We group ourselves according to our standards of what is good, bad, excusable, or not. Funny that I didn't think of that earlier.

Sure, that's the reason why even after good and fact-based discussions hardly anybody ever is convinced by the other's argument :) And I that's not such a bad thing, I'd be quite disappointed if somebody stopped liking their favourite character just because I argued why I feel differently.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

-

[GallowsKnight]

2. Again, you're right, that's not nice either. I guess she kind of gets away with it a bit because she pays back villains in the same coin ('I punish you how you saw fit to punish others').

However, you both argue that Stannis and Dany are quite similar. I tried to make the point that Stannis gets away with crimes that are often held against Dany (not rarely by Stannis' supporters). So while I've probably gone to far in saying that Dany is still better than Stannis, I think I still have a point that she is certainly not worse in that respect. Their storyline are pretty identical anyway: both have noble goals, both are using fire in questionable ways, both are making morally questionable decisions to restore order, both justify their actions by pointing out their hereditary claim, both do at least one pretty admirable thing (saving the NW, freeing the slaves) and struggle with the aftermath of those deeds, etc ...

Oh boy have we come far off-topic ;)

I don't know it really depends on the thread. Stannis and Dany probably get demonized just as fierce. It's just Stannis fans are leigion.

As for the wise masters of Yunkai. Some people have raised the question of whether the right people were punished.

But regardless of that, I don't like it because it's pure revenge not justice. Dany really sinks to their level instead of rising above it.

Had her position been swapped with Stannis he would have meted out something closer to justice. Everyone responsible would have been found. Had it been only forty men or four hundred, regardless of their number he would execute them and no others. He'd probably use fire, which yeah sucks.

[Antler's Fury]

First - I was laughing pretty hard at the community service idea ;)

In regard to your first statment: Eating the dead doesn't inflict insufferable pain on anyone, while burning does, and it served to satisfy a very basic human need - eating - while burning them meant torturing them to get the favor of a cruel god. Personally, I'd sooner see somebody eaten than burnt to get a better harvest (or whatever the sacrifice be for).

And what crime? Sacrificing people for religious purposes or actually any selfish purposes (Aerys also benefited from burning people - it have him a hard-on).

The benefit that Stannis wanted to get from the burning was an end to the blizzard, so that they wouldn't starve and freeze to death. So essentially it comes down to a debate similar to that of the Edric Storm Incident: is it okay to kill a few to save the many? In this case, Stannis refused to burn innocents, even when considering the possibility that it might appease the Red God and end the blizzard, but burnt the guilty to kill two birds with one stone and increase the likelihood of saving the rest of his men. That's very different from Aerys' "benefit."

So while I'm not saying that Stannis is inherently evil and the burnings unforgivable, I am saying that he sacrificed his moral integrity with the first person he burnt.

How exactly would beheading or hanging them mean that he retained his moral integrity?

I take much more issue with the fact that he allows weirwood burnings, by the way

But Stannis didn't allow "weirwood burnings". He burnt one (1) weirwood tree at Storm's End, and that was his tree, to do with as he pleased. And then he burned pieces of one at the Wall. That's it. And now that he has Northmen in his army, he's unlikely to do any more.

Yes, other rulers punish brutally as well. There are, however, examples of a more merciful deaths (Ned, Robb). They are held up as examples of just rulers following a moral code. It is against them that the burnings seem terrible.

Really? Bran seems to think the beheading of the NW deserter to be pretty terrible. Nor was the beheading of Karstark considered a noble or just deed either. Robb himself is troubled by it and the Karstark men desert him.

Now Stannis inflicts a much more painful, dehumanising death on people who committed a lesser crime out of desparation

The NW deserter and Karstark both committed their crimes out of desperation too.

In many threads I've read on Dany, I was surprised how much scorn she received for some of the mistakes she's made and how people are convinced she'd be a terrible ruler.

I judge characters in a more nuanced fashion. To me, the problem is that Dany lacks the knowledge or the experience, or the proper advice to handle the challenges of Slaver's Bay. She also has a short temper, and makes harsh decisions impulsively. For instance, rather than frying the slavers, she could have just as easily ordered the unsulled to arrest them, and then take their property and make them do paid manual labor. These flaws, plus her difficulty in controlling her dragons is what I think makes her unfit to rule Westeros until she gains the necessary skills and maturity. I am particularly troubled, for instance, at her insistence on her "right" to Westeros, despite her not bothering to learn anything about it aside from whatever biased information Viserys told her. But to label her as inherently terrible is a facile judgment.

As said in a post above, there are few precedents for burnings, those that we have were done by mad people (Aerys) or people in a moment of madness (Dany).

But how do Aerys' or Dany's actions have any bearing on Stannis'? Does the fact that Ned's and Robb's beheadings were done by sane people after much consideration somehow make Joffrey's less motivated by delusions of grandeur and insanity?

For that and for other reasons (see posts above), the associations readers have with burning are a lot more negative than any other form of capital punishment. Yes, leaving people in cages to rot is also cruel, and so is cutting off body parts. But is something Stannis does okay because Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton did something similar? And wouldn't maiming the three cannibals be more merciful than burning them, despite the cruelty of the punishment? I'll gladly judge Stannis based on Tywin's or Roose's standards, but then again, I don't like them much either.

But its not just Tywin and Roose we are talking about here. Cages seem to be rather common, as evidenced by the Sworn Sword, when we see them used in the Reach. Castration seems to be a common punishment too, as both Stannis and Tarly use it, the latter as the official master of laws. Like I said, even grotesque punishments in the book are not limited to true monsters like the Boltons.

[E-Ro]

@ Gargarax: It only recently occured to me that "fan"-grouping on this board is not just about book characters, it has much deeper roots. We group ourselves according to our standards of what is good, bad, excusable, or not. Funny that I didn't think of that earlier.

It seems to me that Stannis' group general views of life are closest to my own views. That's it. Stannis guys, I'd gladly have a beer or two with you in real life. :cheers:

OP, sorry for off-topic, but I think I contributed enough to it to be forgiven :) And thanks for this realization!

You know, this is actually probably really correct. I mean, I never considered it in these terms exactly, but I can see how this makes a ton of sense. we naturally grouped ourselves with fans of characters whom we agree with.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

@ Gargarax: It only recently occured to me that "fan"-grouping on this board is not just about book characters, it has much deeper roots. We group ourselves according to our standards of what is good, bad, excusable, or not.

Well, duh.... :cheers:

[Arakan]

I will put it short.

In principal I am pro Stannis as I think he would be the best king Westeros can pray for.

1) The mocking of Cressen was a dick move but all of us are dicks from time to time. So dont make the issue bigger than it is.

2) The execution of the men because of cannibalism was from a military POV the absolute right decision, given the circumstances in which the host is. Whoever served in an army will understand and know what it means when discipline is falling apart.

BUT the way of execution by burning the men alive was in no way right and fully over the top.

In general Stannis MUST stop that madness of human sacrifices to R'hllor! And let it be alone out of the reason that burning people alive is so unnecessarily sadistic (Spanish Inquisition calling). If he trully wants to rule Westeros he should finally renounce this fanatic R'hllor Religion. Otherwise he will alienate many potential supporters!