It would partly make up for that awful scene at the very end of season three (which is, otherwise, the best season in the show's run so far) where she's being held aloft by a crowd of mostly black and brown people as some type of literal white saviour.
shareI think she'll die, her vision in season 3 foretold it.
I'd prefer to see her go bad, proper bad, than have her die as some boring white saviour. If anyone has to die, it should be Jon (although I admit that will feel like de ja vu).
shareIf you're annoyed by the "white savior" thing, remember she gave it up as a bad job! Really, she gave up on Mereen and the Slaver's Bay region, basically declared victory and retreated, and it's all going to fall back into oligarchy soon enough.
But I don't think she's going to go bad. She's not crazy or cruel no matter what some people say, although she will do just about anything to win. But then, so will all the other characters who are still alive, except for Sam.
Davos is a good guy too. Recall the number of times he came this close to being executed by Stannis for doing the right thing?
shareI love Davos, and I think everyone does. But would everyone like him if he were made the head of a house or cause, and had to decide whether to start wars or how to punish traitors without showing weakness?
It's a funny thing, Stannis used to burn people alive as a means of disciplining his staff or dealing with the weather, and some people still like him (I always loathed him). Tyrion burns 50,000 men alive at the Battle of the Blackwater, and in an unjust cause, and nobody seems to think he's evil or crazy. And Danerys burns TWO people alive so quickly they didn't suffer long, and everyone acts like she's the fucking antichrist of Westeros! I really don't get it.
The reason people react against Daenerys is that she's been presented to us as an unequivocally good person, and so, when she does transgress, it's all the more counterintuitive and egregious.
I also think the reason why Stannis was such a fan-favourite among so many of us, is that he was always presented in ambiguous terms, as neither an out-and-out villain nor an out-an-out hero. Yes, he did do some absolutely horrific things, but it was always underpinned by a fascinating, albeit twisted, moral righteousness, rather than the sheer caprice and greed that define people like Joffrey, Ramsay, Roose, Tywin, and Cersei. Stannis truly believed he was doing the right things for the right reasons (as so many misguided and destructive, even tyrannical, people, often do) but that moral complexity makes him more interesting than a typical moustache-twirling rotter.
The other reason he was a fan favourite is that he was never served to us as 'the good guy' or 'the bad guy'. Unlike various other characters, it was left to the reader/viewer to make their own minds up about him, and generally people like it when their intelligence and independence is respected. Few people like to be force-fed 'what is right' (which is partly why the world is in the political situation it's in right now).
And you say that Tyrion was acting in a bad cause during the Battle of Blackwater, but he had a point when he said that the people of Kings Landing would be under threat were Stannis and his men to successfully storm the city. I don't believe for a second that Stannis would have allowed rapes and capricious abuses to have taken place under his watch, as Tyrion warned, but I do think he'd have installed a nasty torturous theocracy akin to the Spanish Inquisition, that would have seen several people, particularly Tyrion and his family, burned alive as heretics. More than enough reason, I'd say, to burn 50,000 men.
By contrast, Daenerys burned prisoners for refusing to bend the knee.
Eurgh, I've got to leave and only have a minute, but IMHO Stannis was presented as an unequivocably horrible person, someone who couldn't compromise or see any POV but his own, and who thought he had the right... no, the DUTY, to kill anyone who disagreed with him. He was a monster.
Danerys, on the other hand, is IMHO presented as an... equivocably good person, a person who is far from entirely good. Someone who will usually make what we consider the right choice if she has to make a decision, but not someone who is capable of rethinking the big issues, like whether it's right to invade Westeros and kill tens of thousands in the cause of the Targaryan throne. She's as flawed as anyone in the story, but gets called out on her harsh actions much more frequently than anyone else for some reason.
Sorry, must go.
She gets called out because she's a blonde white woman from an aristocratic lineage who had the ultimate 'white saviour' moment at the end of season three where she's crowd-surfing over hundreds of black people, and for all her supposed 'goodness' she has her pet dragons (which were originally gifts from a rich man to this princess) immolate prisoners. That's why she gets called out.
If Jon did such harsh things, he'd deserve to be called out too (in fact, I did find myself calling him out when he unnecessarily executed his 'murderers', including little Olly, after he was brought back from the dead, although quickly garrotting one's killers was still marginally more forgivable than burning people alive for not bending the knee). I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but it's not a gender thing, although I do think the showrunners seem to think that Daenerys' gender is some kind of cover or mitigation for all her white privilege/saviour bullshit.
As for Stannis, I still stand what I say. Yes, his actions were horrific, but I still think his motivations were much more complex than the other ostensibly evil characters. I also refuse to believe that a genuinely moral man like Davos would have stood beside Stannis unless he detected some sort of capacity or potential for good.
By the way, I'm not comparing Stannis to Daenerys here. Clearly Stannis is a much more evil person than Daenerys. I just don't think he's as evil as you're saying, or that Daenerys is quite as heroic as you're saying.
Malkovich... you are a very good writer. I must admit watching season 8 episode one showed me that I should have rewatched season 7. I was a bit lost with some things. The time between seasons was too large I feel. At least for me.. Remind me again, how Danny is Jons aunt? Dannys crazy brother is Jons father?
shareThanks for the compliment.
Rhaegar, one of Dany's brothers (not the nasty one who tortured her in season one) is Jon's real father and Lyanna Stark, Ned's sister, is his real mother.
I'm a bit confused, because reading up on it, I see that Rhaegar already had a wife, Elia Martell, and children (all of whom were killed by The Mountain). I wonder if Jon will get to fight the man/monster who murdered his real half-siblings.
Thanks for clearing that up,,,so Jon is now a cousin to the Stark kids,,(arya, sansa and Bron) All I know is I should have rewatched season 7. My head is spinning form trying to piece it back together. Thank God I have a day off tomorrow, lol
shareTo answer your question, yes, Jon is still related to the Stark kids, but instead of being their bastard half-brother, he is their cousin.
And it's Bran. Not Bron. 🙂
Bron is someone else entirely.
Rhaegar first divorced his wife then promptly married Elia. Gilly had mentioned it when she read the account because she thought it was odd that both happened at the same time.
shareI never read the books but I'm guessing the first wife was a dynastic marriage arranged by their houses. They probably never had real feelings for each other. Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together and got married in secret because they were in love, something their families would never have allowed. Better to seek forgiveness than ask permission ...
shareNo Stannis was a horrible person, someone who thought he had a strong moral sense, but who had no real capacity to distinguish right from wrong. He couldn't compromise, he couldn't see other people's point of view, he couldnt understand ethical complexity, he wasnt very bright, but he was incredibly brutal with anyone who disagreed with him, because he understood nothing but violence. He would have been a monster as king, worse than Joffrey.
The fact that he spent much of the show fighting for a just cause was coincidental. His happening to be Robert's rightful heir was happenstance.
Have you read the books Otter?
Because, with all due respect, I think you have misunderstood the character.
To compare him to Joffrey is absolutely absurd.
To say Stannis would be worse than Jofferey as king is laugh out loud funny. That's not even close to being true.
shareNo, I'm quite serious about that. Joffrey was a terrible king but his cruelty was petty and small-scale, if he'd lived he'd have tortured criminals for fun and killed hookers in the basement, but he'd have left the actual governing to people who were smarter and saner.
Stannis is the absolute worst kind of person to be in politics. Politics is all about compromises and understanding other people's point of view, two things STannis was absolutely incapable of. Put a person who can't tolerate the smallest degree of disagreement or disobedient in charge of a fractious society like Westeros, and it'd be a fucking bloodbath and incipient civil war even without his Red Witch urging him to force the worship on the Red God onto a society that already has plenty of Gods.
And yes, I have read the books. I think I understand Stannis very well, better than his fanboys. They're the ones who are looking at him through rose-colored glasses for some reason. They think he was righteous because he talked about morality and supported a couple of just causes, but the fact was that he had no real understanding of ethics and wasn't very bright, and he didn't actually understand what was just or not. It was a trick of fate that left him as Robert's legitimate heir, and a Red Witch that pushed him North to fight the Wildlings.
"even without his Red Witch urging him to force the worship on the Red God onto a society that already has plenty of Gods."
You lost me here. Under Melisandre's firebrand extremist influence we agree it would resemble a Zoroastrian apocalypse. But without it? With Ser Davos acting as his Hand and closest adviser I could see him adopting Davos's fairness and sense of justice. This could keep him in check from indulging his excesses that had otherwise been utterly corrupted by her influence.
A Stannis regime would have the potential to be one that respected the rule of law and contain far less graft and corruption than would plague Joffrey's rule even assuming he had a competent Hand like Tywin.
It's true that King Stannis would have zero tolerance for graft or corruption, but he'd also have zero tolerance for any disagreement or failure to obey, and probably harmless fun as well. Would you want to be the provincial Lord who has to explain that he can't pay tithes because a wildfire destroyed all your vineyards? Sure, mercy, forgiveness, and compassion are pretty damn rare in Westeros, but Stannis didn't seem to have any capacity for those at all, they just weren't part of his personality. He held himself to horrible rigid standards, and everyone else as well, whether they liked it or not.
But yeah, the question of how much influence Melisandre and her Red God really had is interesting. If he'd ever ramped up to his wife's level of True Belief he'd have been a menace to all humanity, his rigidity and self-righteousness could have exploded into religious warfare or genocide if he'd been given the powers of the monarchy. But he never really seemed to be all that enthused about the Red God, IMHO he mainly listened to Melisandre because she got results.
Or seemed to get results for a while. I mean she took out Renly in a way that he enjoyed on many levels, but hen she led him far, far astray. If he'd ever managed to extricate himself from the mess she put him in, he'd probably have gone back to rigid fundamentalist Sevenism.
"he'd probably have gone back to rigid fundamentalist Sevenism."
I don't see that happening unless he was somehow able to splinter it off and become its nominal head like H8 did during the Protestant Reformation. He'd otherwise chafe under attempts by a High Sparrow type that might try to subordinate him to the moral absolutism of a fundamentalist church. He followed Melisandre, albeit reluctantly at times, because her path held the promise of the Iron Throne and absolute power. I can't see him becoming a Sevenist fundamentalist that would concede to a power sharing arrangement with a High Septon.
The way to maintain his absolute authority in the secular realm under the ruling doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings would be to concede spiritual authority to the High Septon who provides him legitimacy. It can be a precarious position since it implies secular authority is conferred, and can therefore be removed, by the church. Therefore the key to maintaining his legitimacy would be NOT to empower religious fundamentalists. But should he cross into sevenist dogmatism he best be prepared to seize spiritual authority to become the ruling head of both church and state. But of course if he tried to do that, he'd be risking a religious revolt and popular backlash. I just don't see him sinking into the morass of religious extremism with Ser Davos as his Hand to keep those impulses in check. So long as he doesn't adopt a religious advisor who seeks to exploit those impulses by whispering those torrential bad ideas into his ear.
"Would you want to be the provincial Lord who has to explain that he can't pay tithes because a wildfire destroyed all your vineyards?"
Is that really all that different than the provincial Lord who can't pay his taxes because wildfire destroyed all his vineyards? I can't see Tywin's tax collectors being all that accommodating either to be honest.
"he'd also have zero tolerance for any disagreement or failure to obey"
Doesn't sound any different from Joffrey/Tywin. They'd have zero tolerance for disagreement and failure to obey too. They're both tyrants. The difference is Stannis's kingdom would be far more reliable in upholding the rule of law. So long as Stannis stayed on the secular side of ruling and avoided dabbling in religious zealotry I could see him being the better ruler by far.
This is a fascinating discussion. . .wish I had more time for it, because your points are so well articulated. But briefly, I will just point out that (It seems) the difference between Stannis & Joffrey is FUNDAMENTAL, and goes to who they are, respectively: Stannis wanted to *rule*, Joffrey just wanted to be King.
This is a crucial distinction. Give the spoiled little unimaginative pampered kid his crown, his toys, and enough bowing and scraping, and someone else could reliably be the real ruler. Joffrey would NOT want to deal with the day-to-day minutiae and decisionmaking involved. Policy & its execution were (clearly) of NO interest to him. He reminds me of a supervillain from 50's Marvel/DC comics. So you want to rule the world? OK, here ya go. . .now what? >Derrrrrrrrp<
Stannis, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous view of how the world should work, a desire to impose that view on others, and a willingness to execute it. Regardless of religious/moral cost.
I, for one, would MUCH prefer Joffrey on the throne. The trains might not run on time, but on balance, you'd probably be better off.
Thank you! I'm going to repeat this: "Stannis, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous view of how the world should work, a desire to impose that view on others, and a willingness to execute it."
Both Stannis and Joffrey were stupid, but Joffrey was stupid, insecure, cruel, and indifferent in a way that made him easy to manipulate. A clever politician like Tywin or Margarey could have kept him occupied with petty cruelty while the smart people governed, and once he'd fathered a couple of legitimate sons he'd have been expendable.
Stannis was much harder to fool, he was also stupid but he insisted on being in complete control of the things he cared about, because he thought he was motivated by duty and morality, the fool. And he had no ability to persuade, just punish, if he decided that drinking wine was bad for people he wouldn't put out a public health campaign about the dangers of too much wine, he'd torch the vineyards and have innkeepers who sold wine flogged in the streets. He was the absolute worst sort of moralist - the kind who doesn't understand the meaning of morality or why the moral guidelines exist, but who thinks anyone who violates his idea of morality ought to be severely punished.
Thank you! I'm going to repeat this: "Stannis, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous view of how the world should work, a desire to impose that view on others, and a willingness to execute it."
Both Stannis and Joffrey were stupid, but Joffrey was stupid, insecure, cruel, and indifferent in a way that made him easy to manipulate. A clever politician like Tywin or Margarey could have kept him occupied with petty cruelty while the smart people governed, and once he'd fathered a couple of legitimate sons he'd have been expendable.
Stannis was much harder to fool, he was also stupid but he insisted on being in complete control of the things he cared about, because he thought he was motivated by duty and morality, the fool. And he had no ability to persuade, just punish, if he decided that drinking wine was bad for people he wouldn't put out a public health campaign about the dangers of too much wine, he'd torch the vineyards and have innkeepers who sold wine flogged in the streets. He was the absolute worst sort of moralist - the kind who doesn't understand the meaning of morality, but who thinks anyone who breaks his rules ought to be severely punished.
Thank you! I'm going to repeat this: "Stannis, on the other hand, has a clear and unambiguous view of how the world should work, a desire to impose that view on others, and a willingness to execute it."
Both Stannis and Joffrey were stupid, but Joffrey was stupid, insecure, cruel, and indifferent in a way that made him easy to manipulate. A clever politician like Tywin or Margarey could have kept him occupied with petty cruelty while the smart people governed, and once he'd fathered a couple of legitimate sons he'd have been expendable.
Stannis was much harder to fool, he was also stupid but he insisted on being in complete control of the things he cared about, because he thought he was motivated by duty and morality, the fool. And he had no ability to persuade, just punish, if he decided that drinking wine was bad for people he wouldn't put out a public health campaign about the dangers of too much wine, he'd torch the vineyards and have innkeepers who sold wine flogged in the streets. He was the absolute worst sort of moralist - the kind who doesn't understand the meaning of morality or why the moral guidelines exist, but who thinks anyone who violates his idea of morality ought to be severely punished.
A capable ruler like Tywin Lannister would know which regions had actually suffered natural or economic disasters, and he might be merciful to a lord who genuinely couldn't pay his taxes if they had a good relationship or he thought it was a good idea to put that Lord in his debt. Or he might use the failure to pay taxes as an excuse to get rid of someone who was inconvenient, while the rigid Stannis would ruin or execute his best school chum if they couldn't pay the taxes, whatever he'd put down as law, with no favor or mercy.
As for the question of religion... Stannis didn't seem overwhelmingly religious, but he DID seem like the kind of guy who thought that other people ought to be religious! You know, the kind of asshole who conflates the authority of God/s with his own authority, and wants everyone else to be religious because he thinks religion is all about obedience attained through fear? Lots of tyrants approve of religion or a show of religion, even if it's only for other people.
Is a system built around patronage and cronyism under a Joffrey/Tywin rule really better than one where the rule of law is impartial and devoid of favoritism?
I understand why the former might be better for the Lannister wallet and whichever nobles prescient enough to cozy up to them should they have a spell of bad luck. But I see the latter as still a huge improvement to the overall type of society the average rank and file can aspire to live in and their quality of life.
And you're right about Stannis not being a religious guy, another reason I think away from Mel's clutches he would stay away from Seven fundamentalism. But I strongly disagree with your earlier assessment that Stannis isn't intelligent or have any understanding of ethics. In fact Stannis is highly rational, he uses his reasoning faculties in making his every determination. And his ethics are the embodiment of Emmanual Kant's deontological ethics, who is easily one of the 5 most brilliant philosophers of all time.
Not saying Stannis possesses Kant's genius, but his ethics are highly advanced for the feudal period of Westeros in which he resides. Surely GRRM had to be aware when he conjured up Stannis he was modeling his ethics on an Enlightenment era giant and father of modern ethics. Kantian philosophy requires man to do his duty to be ethical, irrespective of outcome. From the Kantian perspective it is not the result that matters but the intention, if the intention was good the act was ethical. So if Stannis burned his daughter with the intention to save the whole of Westeros, then by Kant's perspective he has done what is right. He has fulfilled his duty, a value by which Stannis very much acts and emphasizes to others.
"Is a system built around patronage and cronyism under a Joffrey/Tywin rule really better than one where the rule of law is impartial and devoid of favoritism?"
Modern civilizations maintain The Rule Of Law by setting up a system of judges and juries who are sworn to be impartial, and in the case of the judges, to understand the law. Stannis showed no sign of wanting to set up a system*, he wanted to maintain the system where the king's word was law, with himself as king. IMHO a system of cronyism and patronage might be easier to live under than a the word of an asshole with a low IQ being the final arbiter of justice.
And no, I've read the books and seen the TV show over and over, and I don't see where the hell you're getting the idea that Stannis had a complex moral code, or any sort of moral code other than the rules he was taught as a child and the conviction that everyone should be obeying him without question. He wasn't that bright, and never actually *thought* anything out, his mind was already made up. About everything.
* And neither did Danerys, anyone who thinks she's set up as some sort of ideal ruler misunderstands her.
But surely you're aware our modern system of laws is derived from English common law and is so named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across England during the medieval ages, the period of which this story and its feudal system of governance is based. A commitment to fairness and justice are hardly novel inventions of modern courts.
As in feudal monarchies, kings hold ultimate judicial power with a coterie of lords and officers underneath who would hold local courts, listen to petitions and accusations, and rule based on the evidence and law. The lords entrust tasks to landed knights and bailiffs to help them keep and enforce the laws. If a lord is unable to adjudicate a matter himself, it is up to the feudal lord of the great house of that area (e.g. Eddard Stark) and eventually the king to give sentencing. So think of the king as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and ultimate arbiter on judicial matters that rise to his attention, but hardly the only decider. A king committed to justice and fairness will appoint lords expected to uphold those principles. A king that is corrupt, takes bribes, and disregards the law when it's at odds with his own personal benefit and enrichment can expect to have courts and officers of that court that do the same. The fish rots from the head down.
As for Stannis, would you consider an act that kills 100 people to save 1000 to be ethical? Kant would. Stannis conspicuously argues using this very reasoning throughout the series and makes the same considerations Kant would to come to his conclusions. In fact he impartially sacrifices his own daughter in commitment to this ethical principle. Stannis appears to put quite a bit of intellectual work to his choices in the books. He seems to be by far the greater intellectual among all the claimants to the throne. His errors seem forgivable even by ethical norms today given the limitations of medieval knowledge. This might appear less apparent on the show where we're not privy to his thoughts and rationale.
Oh please, Stannis didn't sacrifice his daughter because that was the right thing to do, he did so because he was fucking desperate and didn't see another way out of the mess he was in. Which makes him stupid as well as immoral. And Stannis never put any intellectual work into anything, he never debated or considered what was right, as I said his mind was already made up. About everything.
Of course there were other options when the Red Witch started pressing him to sacrifice his little girl to the Red God.
A truly decent man, like Jon Snow, would have refused and told his men "If we're going to die, we're not going to die as monsters", and given Melisandre the boot. An effective (if amoral) bastard like Tywin Lannister would have publically refused to sacrifice the girl, and if nothing better came up, would have told the girl to take a walk in the woods with Auntie Melisandre, where all the dead trees and dry wood were. A clever villain like Ramsay would have roasted Melisandre alive for failing to come up with a better plan than killing off his bloodline, and given his starving freezing men some nice hot roast witch to keep them going. Etc.
But you are judging Stannis that way because you have the benefit of omniscience. His downfall was from being utterly beguiled and deluded by Mel where he truly believed sacrificing his daughter would save the realm. Even here he is actually given a lot of proof of what Mel is saying, he's not a blind faith devotee. He was won over by seeing what her magic was capable of. Can you really blame him for coming around to believing he was Azor Ahai given the magic and accuracy from Mel's visions up to the point of sacrificing Shireen?
So from an ethical perspective it's quite understandable to take the duty given to him by her god.
Yes, I do judge fictional characters having the benefit of omniscience and hindsight.
And look, if you're trying to defend Stannis I wouldn't do it by picking the subject of burning his own child alive! That's indefensible by absolutely any standards!
As for Melisandre, face it, the only thing she ever really did right was to take out Renly, after that she got everything wrong and lead Stannis and all his followers to their deaths. He didn't believe her so much because she got results, as because she fed his ego with her tales of his being the savior of all mankind, and because once he'd started on a course of action he was too damn stubborn to admit he was wrong.
I'm not saying it's justifiable or defensible by any standard. I'm saying it's *understandable* why Stannis did what he did because of how deluded and skewed his sense of morality had been twisted by religious extremism. You're failing to appreciate the difference.
Consider the Old Testament parable where Abraham is commanded by "God" to kill his son Isaac. He's about to go through with it and would have if not stopped. He wins plaudits in Judaism and Christianity for passing his test of faith with flying colors. So why is Abraham so roundly praised for his willingness to go through with such a barbaric act? Well, if God were real wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable and ethically understandable to commit filicide if God made you his chosen one and told you to? Stannis was operating under similar assumptions, that he was the Lord of Light's chosen one Azor Ahai.
I'd also point out that the fact that she got results is WHY he found her lies compelling. How can you blame him?
Do you really have so little faith in Ser Davos's judgement that you believe he'd devote his life and loyalty to Stannis if he did not believe him an honorable man? I maintain it's Mel and her religious extremism that skewered him, not because he didn't have a strong sense of ethics which was indistinguishable from Kant's categorical imperative. I'm certain that's what GRRM modeled Stannis on.
No, really, pick some other incident to use to defend Stannis! Please! Defending the horrific murder of a little girl is getting creepy! Find some incident where Stannis got things wrong from good intentions, will you?
As for Davos... I can't claim to understand why he stayed loyal to such a horrible person. Partly it was because he didn't want to be disloyal or a turncoat, partly because once you've picked a side in that world you can't back out because then you've got enemies who will not forgive you for your part in the conflict. But after a while, Davos's role became that of a mitigator, trying to keep Stannis from doing his worst, or Melisandre's worst. He gradually got sucked into that role, and I was always frustrated that he didn't fully grasp that that was what he was doing.
Yeah, after he becomes twisted by Mel it was hard to understand why he continued to follow Stannis. Which is my point, it was her influence that twisted him.
If you're contending that Stannis was an awful person prior to that, then you'll need to explain how. Ser Davos praises Stannis numerous times as being honest, worthy of loyalty, and doing what was best for the realm. Do you really think he'd say those things if it wasn't true? Do you think Stannis had just deceived him into believing he held those qualities all those years prior to meeting Mel?
And just as an epistemological inquiry because I'm genuinely curious, why do you think Jews and Christians celebrate their prophet Abraham's "creepiness" in his willingness to kill his own child?
Again, I don't find it defensible, I find it horrific as to what religiosity is capable of making people believe and do. But even as an atheist, I find it understandable by trying to imagine what it must be like for the brainwashed religious who believe an omnipotent being is commanding them what to do and has dominion over their salvation.
Yes, Melisandre did her damndest to twist Stannis, but I don't blame her for all the awful things he did, or his lack of sense and imagination. You seem to think that he acted in the interest of Westeros, but since when is ramping up a civil war and getting a hundred thousand of your followers killed good for your country?
Sure, getting Joffrey off the throne was in the best interests of everyone, but there are ways and ways, and Olenna Tyrell managed to accomplish it without hurting anyone but Tyrion. She was the one who was acting in the interests of Westeros - she got rid of Joffrey The Psychopath and got a nice boy who'd do what his advisors told him on the throne, and gave him a wife who could do the actual ruling. Stannis could have done something similar if he'd had any fucking brains, made a deal with Cersei to gang up on Renly if Tommen married Shireen after Joffrey's death from a serious illness, and put an end to that stupid war.
But Stannis would never do that, because he firmly believed that he was Robert's legitimate heir, and he was going to push his claim if it got everyone in Westeros killed. And of course making war to claim the Iron Throne benefitted absolutely nobody, not even himself as he didn't want the kingship, yet it got at least a hundred thousand people killed. No, making war on Renly and Joffrey was not the action of a moral man, or a good man.
I understand the reality that it was actually people like Olenna that caused their deaths. But after watching her birth demons to kill Renly and appear to cause the demise of his 3 mortal enemies Robb Stark, Balon, and Joffrey from sacrificing Gendry's blood seen in prophetic visions, doesn't it make more understandable why it made sense to him the Lord of Light would need Shireen's blood to divinely intervene and slay his remaining foes? The whole time Mel was telling him he needed to take that leap of faith while he was clearly rational in his decision making. It was the Shireen moment that crossed the line into faith based reasoning and the point of no return.
Can you really blame him for coming around to believing he really was the Prince that was Promised?
I'm not arguing Stannis "had brains" or was moral or immoral, just that he was written to be an ethically reflexive Deontological Zombie from Kantian philosophy. His ethics were singularly driven by duty. In Kantian terms this was his categorical imperative which denoted an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. The biggest critique of deontological ethics is the inflexibility of its moral absolutism. Your criticisms are valid.
"Can you really blame him for coming around to believing he really was the Prince that was Promised?"
Yup! Definitely can!
But yeah, I loathe what you describe as Kantian philosophy. I'm the one yelling "Screw your principles, screw your duty, PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF YOUR PRINCIPLES".
And BTW, this is a criticism I level at Danerys as much as Stannis. She's another one who thinks it's her duty to invade Westeros and kill and impoverish God knows how many thousands of people, in service of a goal that will benefit nobody but herself. However, I don't loathe her as much as I loathe Stannis, because she at least can achieve her military goals without mass slaughter. Sometimes.
He was Robert’s heir and heir to the throne by law. Why should he be expected to stand aside for his traitorous younger brother?
shareI wasn't suggesting that he stand aside for Renly, who had absolutely no right to the throne, I was saying that letting "Robert's children" succeed to the throne would have been in the best interests of everyone in Westeros. If he'd done that, and maybe joined the Lannisters in putting down Renly, then tens of thousands of lives would have been spared, whole regions would have stayed safe and prosperous instead of being devastated by warfare, the upcoming winter famines would have been avoided, etc.
Sure, leaving Joffrey on the throne was a problem, but Olenna Tyrell showed that there were ways around that particular problem that hardly inconvenienced anyone. SHE was the one acting in the interests of the nation!
[deleted]
Stannis despised politics. He'd leave the Onion Knight (perhaps one of the few people in Westeros who isn't a piece of shit) to deal with all of that. Davos describes Stannis as being fair and just, that's exactly how his reign as king would have been.
share"Stannis despised politics."
Yeah, because politics involves other people having a say! No, he didn't want to delegate, he just wanted to be obeyed. In everything.
Stannis was never one of my favorites so I'm staying out of that argument, but I can't disagree more about Joffrey. His type of personality would not allow him to sit back and let others play politics. He feared Tywin so as long as Tywin was alive and present in the kingdom what you described might have happened. However, before Tywin was there, he was not controlled by his hand, or his mother. More then once Joffrey made it clear he had nothing but contempt for any of his own subjects.
If I'm not mistaken he was also the one that ordered the deaths of all of King Robert's bastard children.
The only one on the show that might have been worse then him would have been Ramsey Snow. Joffrey would have hurt his people whenever he was angered (which was all the time) Ramsey would have hurt his people whenever he was bored (which was also all the time).
And what do you think Jon should have done to the traitorous murderers who killed him?
shareSend them to the other side of the Wall.
I certainly wouldn't have executed the child.
Don't worry about killing your own brothers, I'll just let you guys go. LOL great policy. Look like a weak leader among your peers and run the risk of them becoming a part of the Knight Kings army of the dead. Those traitors HAD to be executed.
shareThe child would have had 2 fates on the other side of the wall. One starve/freeze to death, in which case hanging him would have been a more humane punishment. Or Two, he becomes part of the night King's army and you do nothing but bolster your enemies numbers.
For the Kingdom the alternative to death was to send them to the wall, once you're at the wall and you do something like this... well...
Danaerys immolated plenty more people than just two. I think that she is rationalizing that she will make the work a better place if she is in power.
Frankly, I'd prefer a world where Sam is running everything. He is kind and makes rational decisions.
Oh please, if Sam were king, even I could wrest power away from him!
And thats the moral dilemma inherent in gaining power in a feudal society - if you arent ruthless and vicious by modern standards, you lose your lands or your throne to someone who is. Some people dont get that about Danerys.
Where do you draw the line?
You're making a heck of a lot of allowances for Daenerys that I doubt you'd make for anyone else on the show who uses 'ruthless and vicious' means.
That ends justify the means bullshit is for people who think they're entitled to become ruler and that their particular brand of tyranny is thus less awful than the other person's.
It's exactly, and ironically in view of your contempt for him, the misguided view of the world Stannis chose to pursue.
EVERYONE at that level of society uses ruthless and vicious means*! Even saintly Jon Snow executed Janus Flint without a trial and hanged a little boy, none of our heroes behave in a way that's considered acceptable today.
As to where I draw the line... there is no firm line. I just dont judge Danerys more harshly than I judge other characters.
* Except Ned Stark, and look where it got him.
If I were a ruler I'd treat everyone with kindness and compassion, although I wouldn't suffer fools gladly and I'd keep an eye on my back.
But I'd see no sense in executing those who have wronged me, far less a child (!) especially when there are other, more humane, ways of keeping them in check. The only time to kill would be in self-defence.
You are as much a nice person... But you dont seem to really get how rough politics are in Westeros, or were during the Plantagenet-Tudor dynasties, which served as the inspiration for this show.
If you try to rule the Lannisters with kindness and compassion and your basic niceness, you go the way of Ned Stark! Me, I wouldnt even try, I'm just not ruthless enough to survive at the top in a society like that. If I were unlucky enough to inherit a major lordship or the iron throne, I'd get religion and chuck it all, or go be the Night Watch's new cook.
"But I'd see no sense in executing those who have wronged me"
Then you wouldn't be in power long. You'd be inviting your enemies to overthrow you if they saw no consequence to betrayal. And yes, no matter how kind and compassionate you were, you'd still have enemies who would want to seize your power.
There's a reason Julius was betrayed and died a bloody mess on the Senate floor (Shakespeare's version) while Augustus ruled to a ripe old age.
And everyone on the show does "the end justifies the means" stuff that would be considered monstrous today, even the good guys.
I suppose I judge them on whether the ends actually justify the means. Telling the Unsullied to kill their owners who cut off their dicks, okay. Jon executing a kid, well, it would have been considered correct circa 1400 AD. Stannis burning his own supporters alive because they correctly said that his campaign was going badly... hell NO.
I wouldn’t characterize Jon’s execution of Slynt as ruthless or vicious. It was a lawful and appropriate summary judgment of an offense committed in his presence and witnessed by dozens of others. There was no need for a trial in the same way that no trial is convened for contempt of court offenses. Failure to obey a judge’s orders in his or her courtroom will put the offender in jail without any trial.
Insubordination and desertion cannot be tolerated in a military organization. You’ll remember that Ned didn’t give the Watch deserter a trial either before taking his head.
Oh, the execution of Slynt was definitely ruthless! It was intended to enforce Jon's authority as Lord Commander, to make it clear to the whole NW that he could not be disobeyed with impunity.
I used that as an example of something that is acceptable in Westeros but not to us, understanding this show requires some cultural reletavism. We think executing someone without a trial is barbarous and illegal.
Slynt was given multiple opportunities to stand down. These days a soldier who is insubordinate or otherwise refuses to follow orders on base would be relieved and taken into custody for court martial. They wouldn't execute him. But in combat anyone refusing to obey their C.O. might still be shot today if the rogue troop's presence was a danger to the unit and there was no practical way to unload them mid-operation. It would be up to the commander's discretion how safe it was to have a prisoner in tow, given whatever their mission was.
In a world like this one, where oaths of loyalty are taken with deadly seriousness, Jon had no choice but to make an example of Slynt or start losing the respect of his men (and therefore his grip on command). He couldn't exactly put the guy on a chopper to Leavenworth.
Yes, Slynt was given every chance to back down and save himself, and so was Randall Tarly and his idiot son. It was as necessary for Danerys to execute the guy when he looked her in the face and refused to kneel, the nobles of Westeros are amoral bastards and if she'd let those morons live then the nobles would have concluded that they needed to fear Cersei and not Danerys, and so much for drawing allies to her cause.
Sorry to belabor the point of Danerys being judged more harshly than any of the other characters for doing things the way they did back in the War of the Roses, but that's how you play the game of thrones to win.
John already died, he will either be King or the last Targ, or a White King (been so long I don't remember what they're called anymore). Lol.
shareI think she may turn bad..she certainly has it in her and she likes power just a little too much.
But I also think she'll turn it around in time for Jon to die.
I'd rather Danaery die myself and it feels certain one or both won't make it.
Unfortunately Jon's a much better person and will be far too willing to sacrifice himself... so there he goes.. Unselfish to the end.
If both characters have to remain heroes, I'd prefer to see Dany turn temporarily bad and then see the error of her ways just before it's far too late, and she goes truly and irredeemably evil, and for Jon to be the one who dies (for good this time) like a truly altruistic hero, as you point out.
shareI think Jon will kill her as Azor Ahai.
shareJon's resurrection has to come into play in all this. Cant leave that dangling. There must be a reveal.
shareMy prediction too. Dany is too power hungry to give up the claim to the throne. This will cause major conflict that will eventually lead to her death. If I had to choose who I’d rather see die between Jon Snow or Dany it would be Dany. I’ve never liked her. Jon Snow is way more likeable.
shareI don't think they will make her bad in the show, only 5 eps left. But in the books I think she'll turn mad.
shareI think it does make sense to compare Stannis and Daenerys. Both, I think, were corrupted by the red god of fire -- both given to fits of destructive madness. We saw how it ended with Stannis, and I predict a similar end for Daenerys. (Although with her apparent immunity to fire, perhaps not.)
Is Jon a unifying character now? Part fire and part ice? We'll see.
[deleted]