why did Stannis mock Maester Cressen?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I had already posted it and thought it would be cowardly to erase it once it's published.

Where I'm from, we have moral science lessons in primary schools, where they teach about honesty and bravery and the like in secular terms. I was always a very gutsy child ("Especially for a girl!" as my uncle used to say) and had a tendency to mock my more timid peers.

So, this one time in third grade, we had this lesson on physical versus moral courage where we were taught about conscentious dissenters during one of the world wars and how it took as much courage to stand up for what you believe in as it does to go into war-and in some cases more so.

SO, when I said "taught", I meant formally, as a part of curriculum.

Actually, it seems cowardly to me to leave it up there. It seems like you want to leave the insult while avoiding any blame for insult (which is espeically funny and ironic considering the topic is moral courage). Erasing it while leaving an apology to people is what I do when I believe something I said may have come wrong. I feel it is more polite.

I appreciate your explanation. I see we have two different opinions of what is proper rather than my initial impression.

Burning men alive for the crime of eating isn't cruel? Why not just take their heads? Just because Stannis says (and wants to believe) "I am not a cruel man" doesn't make it true. I say this as a big fan of the Mannis, BTW

People. They ate people. That's the important part.

Its not about cannibalism being "evil," its about maintaining discipline in a starving army in dire conditions.

*curses the lack of a Like button*

Almost any culture will say that in such dire conditions cannibalism is acceptable so long as murder is not involved. I mean it is only because of Davos that Stannis ins't a cannibal himself.

Exactly. Stannis knows what he's doing. Stannis clearly understands that sometimes cannibalism might be necessary. He considered and was saved by Davos. but the difference would have been order. He would have been the one ordering it at Storm's End. Allowing people to eat their fellow soldiers without repercussion would eventually lead to people murdering their fellow soldiers to eat them.

Exactly. I agree that under certain circumstances, it's not evil per se. But as Stannis himself says, it's a short step from eating the dead, to helping those you judge to be dying "on their way" if you get hungry enough.

Damnit. Where is the Like button?

As for the actual topic: OK. Stannis was a dick. So what? Sometimes people get on each other's nerves and are dicks to each other. Let's remember that Cressen was not innocent (he planned to assassinate a woman who did no wrong outside of bringing a new religion) and gave terrible advice (imagine if Shireen was married to Sweetrobin or was in Lysa's/Littlefinger's control, though to be fair, there was no way Cressen would know this). Sure, Stannis was a bit of a dick. But it's Stannis. That's his general mode and he wasn't exactly over-the-top cruel to Cressen.

[James Arryn]

Exactly. Stannis knows what he's doing. Stannis clearly understands that sometimes cannibalism might be necessary. He considered and was saved by Davos. but the difference would have been order. He would have been the one ordering it at Storm's End. Allowing people to eat their fellow soldiers without repercussion would eventually lead to people murdering their fellow soldiers to eat them.

Wow, an elaborate rationale whereby It is explained that Stannis Baratheon gets to condemn others for doing something it would be okay for him to do, or doing something it would be ok for him to condemn others for doing.

That, like, never happens.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Wow, an elaborate rationale whereby It is explained that Stannis Baratheon gets to condemn others for doing something it would be okay for him to do, or doing something it would be ok for him to condemn others for doing.

So where lies the problem?

[James Arryn]

So where lies the problem?

With Aerys.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Wow, an elaborate rationale whereby It is explained that Stannis Baratheon gets to condemn others for doing something it would be okay for him to do, or doing something it would be ok for him to condemn others for doing.

That, like, never happens.

Just like it never happens that the facts are ignored to paint Stannis in a bad light. :rolleyes:

Did Stannis ever eat someone while serving in someone else's army? Nope. Did he disobey orders and threaten the discipline of the army he served? Nope.

So, no. He did not do, nor even consider doing the same thing those men did.

The point is that he executed them to maintain discipline rather than he thinks cannibalism itself is a death worthy offense. There is a difference between the commanding officer during a siege ordering cannibalism and random soldiers doing it on a march without permission (which getting away with it will only encourage it and will likely lead to murder as the cannibals begin to outnumber the corpses). It is an issue of discipline rather than cannibalism.

But hey, why look at the major differences in situations when you can take very broad similarities ignore the significant differences of those situations or the entire point of the a statement when you can ignore everything and just call Stannis and his fans hypocrites?

I would honestly not be shocked if I heard Stannis accused of rape because he has had sex (because saying consensual sex with Selyse and Mel is different than Gregor raping Elia with her son's/a random baby's brains on his hands is "an elaborate rationale whereby It is explained that Stannis Baratheon gets to condemn others for doing something it would be okay for him to do" since after all penetration happened in all three cases). I have never heard this, but I wouldn't be shocked if I did.

[The Raging Bull]

Maybe a small mistake on GRRM part. It's one of the reasons that I disliked Stannis to begin with, though I changed my mind later as many others did.

[Russo]

Nobody bats an eye when Tywin orders Amory Lock and the Mountain to burn the Riverlands, raping children, butchering innocents and torturing them for information.

But Stannis mocks his Maester and everyone loses their minds.

I think a better one is "Hoster Tully orders entire Darry villages to be put to the sword during the rebellion, but Stannis, who as far as we know has never murdered a person who was not guilty of crime, would probably be considered more evil in a poll"

[E-Ro]

I think a better one is "Hoster Tully orders entire Darry villages to be put to the sword during the rebellion, but Stannis, who as far as we know has never murdered a person who was not guilty of crime, would probably be considered more evil in a poll"

Yeah, he has killed men in war, and ordered men executed, like every other lord. But he has NEVER once ordered a mass execution of any group.

[Dagon]

Didn't he let it happen because he mocked their religion? Yea, I think that's what happened. Can't have that.

[Russo]

Didn't he let it happen because he mocked their religion? Yea, I think that's what happened. Can't have that.

Was that Stannis or Melissandre? Do we even know Stannis was back on Dragonstone when that occured?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I don't think he was.

[E-Ro]

I don't think he was.

Yeah, when lord sunglass was killed Stannis was not around, he had no say in that at all and could have done nothing.

[PeterPaulGualtieri]

I think it's just George getting a feel for the character. Perhaps he'd originally planned for Stannis to be more spiteful and petty. I like Stannis but he comes across very sulky (like King Maekar, I'm convinced they're the same person) in those Clash chapters. There's still the idle middle-kid-syndrome stuff from time to time in later books, but for the most part it drops off after Clash.

[Russo]

I think it's just George getting a feel for the character. Perhaps he'd originally planned for Stannis to be more spiteful and petty. I like Stannis but he comes across very sulky (like King Maekar, I'm convinced they're the same person) in those Clash chapters. There's still the idle middle-kid-syndrome stuff from time to time in later books, but for the most part it drops off after Clash.

I think he's a better person when Melisandre isn't around. And I think it's written that way intentionally

[Buckthorn]

Ramsay will probably have Stannis' head in the WOW thus avenging Cressen!!!

[Gargarax]

As for the actual topic: OK. Stannis was a dick. So what? Sometimes people get on each other's nerves and are dicks to each other. Let's remember that Cressen was not innocent (he planned to assassinate a woman who did no wrong outside of bringing a new religion) and gave terrible advice (imagine if Shireen was married to Sweetrobin or was in Lysa's/Littlefinger's control, though to be fair, there was no way Cressen would know this). Sure, Stannis was a bit of a dick. But it's Stannis. That's his general mode and he wasn't exactly over-the-top cruel to Cressen.

I don't think the problem is that Stannis is a dick, because there is hardly a character without any dickish moments. The problem is rather that Stannis, while being just and righteous in general, is not very good at treating individual subjects that way. What he does is forgivable to the person Stannis, but not really to the king Stannis, because it shows bad leadership. Yes, it's not a "big" thing, but where do you draw the line between this and Jeoff's cruel games? Not comparing the two, just saying that in principle, it's a similar flaw. Besides, whether Cressen's advice was bad is completely irrelevant because Stannis doesn't know and punishing bad counsel that was well-meant is not exactly a virtue of good leadership.

As to the discussion of burning the traitors instead of granting them a quick death, the excuses brought forward don't convince me. Of course executing them is the right thing to do, for all the reasons that were mentioned. But even NW deserters, for example, whose crime seems a bit more serious, are "only" beheaded and not made a warning of (such as heads on spikes). Is it okay, because it makes the queen's men happy? No - absurd idea. Is it okay, because it might buy the favour of R'hllor? Of course not. So seriously, Stannis has done a number of noble deeds to weigh out some of his questionable actions, but don't try to justify the burnings. Otherwise, cheer for Aerys as well! I'm sure you'd find similar reasons to justify the burning of Brandon Stark.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I don't think the problem is that Stannis is a dick, because there is hardly a character without any dickish moments. The problem is rather that Stannis, while being just and righteous in general, is not very good at treating individual subjects that way. What he does is forgivable to the person Stannis, but not really to the king Stannis, because it shows bad leadership. 1 Yes, it's not a "big" thing, but where do you draw the line between this and Jeoff's cruel games? 2 Not comparing the two, just saying that in principle, it's a similar flaw. Besides, whether Cressen's advice was bad is completely irrelevant because Stannis doesn't know and punishing bad counsel that was well-meant is not exactly a virtue of good leadership.

3 As to the discussion of burning the traitors instead of granting them a quick death, the excuses brought forward don't convince me. Of course executing them is the right thing to do, for all the reasons that were mentioned. But even NW deserters, for example, whose crime seems a bit more serious, are "only" beheaded and not made a warning of (such as heads on spikes). Is it okay, because it makes the queen's men happy? No - absurd idea. Is it okay, because it might buy the favour of R'hllor? Of course not. So seriously, Stannis has done a number of noble deeds to weigh out some of his questionable actions, but 7 don't try to justify the burnings. Otherwise, cheer for Aerys as well! I'm sure you'd find similar reasons to justify the burning of Brandon Stark.

1. Telling someone to put on a fool's hat but refusing to go further in mockery is no where close to Joffery.

2. Nothing matters what a person says before the "but" or in this case, "just saying." If you're not comparing the two, why are you bringing Joffery up? How is "just" saying that it is a similar flaw anything but comparing the two?

Stannis wasn't kidding about his giving people water quote.

EDIT: Removed the rest of comments due to Mikkel's post saying it was probably a response to him rather than a strawman targeting me.

[Mikkel]

Gargarax may be referring to me, because I said it was "part of Stannis' overly pragmatic character" to burn the men, since they were going to be killed anyway. The keyword being "overly". Ie, I do think it was morally wrong to burn the men. That I don't go all "Stannis is the worst person ever!!" may lead people to think I'm excusing him. I'm not, I'm explaining what I think is Stannis' reasoning. It's also an accurate description of where on the scale of wrongdoings I think this falls: not very high. It's wrong, but it's not the crime of the century.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Gargarax may be referring to me, because I said it was "part of Stannis' overly pragmatic character" to burn the men, since they were going to be killed anyway. The keyword being "overly". Ie, I do think it was morally wrong to burn the men. That I don't go all "Stannis is the worst person ever!!" may lead people to think I'm excusing him. I'm not, I'm explaining what I think is Stannis' reasoning. It's also an accurate description of where on the scale of wrongdoings I think this falls: not very high. It's wrong, but it's not the crime of the century.

Ah. I see. Thanks for informing. I edited my post to deal with this new information. Since he quoted no one other than me and talked in the second person, I got confused. Sorry about that.

[Lummel]

The reread picked up that Cressen sees his relationship with Stannis as a Father-son one. So the humilation is particularly hard for him. Stannis doesn't see their relationship in the same way, the Maester wasn't a substitute father for him. It is a poignant scene, but we read it coloured by Cressen's feelings.

Having said that exposing people in your court to public ridicule is a poor example to set, but then no one has ever thought that Stannis has an excess of people skills.